4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Limassol. 5.  On 10 February 1986 the applicant filed a civil action (no. 702/86) before the District Court of Limassol against three individuals and a company in respect of a contract of sale of an apartment. 6.  On 11 September 1987 the case was taken off the trial list, following a request by the applicant’s lawyer and the accord of the defendants’ lawyer, in view of the fact that an application for a winding-up order of the defendant company was pending before the District Court of Nicosia. The court in particular stated that “by consent the action is taken off the trial list to be fixed afresh on the application of either side to the Registrar when the case [was] ready to be heard”. 7.  On 29 October 1987 the lawyer of the first three defendants notified the court that the winding-up order had been issued against the defendant company and that the applicant could only continue the action against the latter with the leave of the court. 8.  On 19 March 1988 the Official Receiver requested the court not to grant leave for the continuation of the action at that particular time. Thus, the proceedings remained suspended. 9.  The action was fixed for a hearing following a letter sent on 9 February 1995 to the court by the lawyer of the first three defendants. 10.  Between the above date and 7 March 2002, only two hearing sessions were held. The case was adjourned several times. Five of these adjournments were at the applicant’s request, two due to the absence of his lawyer, three at the parties’ and two at the defendants’ request. The adjournments related to, inter alia, amendments to pleadings and objections thereto and appointment of administrators and new lawyers. The applicant had requested an additional adjournment within this period, which had been rejected by the court. Further, the case was adjourned on the basis of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, namely, on 15 September 1998 by an order of the Supreme Court pending its determination of applications by the applicant for certiorari and prohibition until the decision was adopted on 18 March 1999, and, secondly, pending the determination of an appeal lodged by the applicant on 6 February 2001 against the decision by the district court dismissing an application for an amendment of his statement of claim. The Supreme Court rejected his latter appeal on 21 February 2002. The case also appears to have remained dormant from 14 May 1996 and 31 October 1997. 11.  From 8 March 2002 until 26 March 2002 three hearing sessions took place and one session of oral submissions. 12.  By a judgment dated 23 May 2002, the District Court dismissed the action concerning three of the defendants but found in favour of the applicant regarding the defendant company. 13.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The appeal was heard on 21 March 2003, following one adjournment at the defendants’ request with the applicant’s consent. 14.  On 21 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the findings of the district court.