4.  In accordance with a contract concluded on 18 February 1987 between the Municipality of Itea and the applicant, the latter undertook the construction of a sewage treatment plant on behalf of the municipality whose cost amounted to 143,036.24 euros. 5.  On 24 July 1990 the applicant asked the department in charge of the project (Technical Services of Municipalities and Communities in the Prefecture of Fokida (hereafter “T.S.M.C”) to compile a revised table of costs in order to take into account further work following an amendment of the project. However, no table was created within the determined three-month time-limit, following the applicant’s request. 6.  On 29 October 1990 the applicant lodged an objection with the T.S.M.C – a remedy which had compulsorily to be exhausted according to the national legislation before having recourse to a court – challenging the omission of the aforementioned department to compile this table. The objection was rejected by the municipal council of Itea. 7.  On 8 February 1991 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal (αίτηση θεραπείας) against the abovementioned decision which was also tacitly rejected by the Prefect of Fokida. 8.  On 3 July 1991 the applicant lodged a recourse with the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal challenging the implicit rejection of the Prefect of Fokida. 9.  In a judgment dated 30 June 1992 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Prefect and the case was remitted to him for a fresh examination (judgment no. 1627/1992). In particular, the appellate court rejected the arguments of the Municipality of Itea according to which the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirement concerning the notification of the appeal to the other party. 10.  On 24 November 1992 the Municipality of Itea lodged an appeal on points of law. 11. In a judgment dated 1st April 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed judgment no. 1627/1992 of the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to a different division of the same court (judgment no. 1618/1996). 12.  On 24 September 1997, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the requirement of notification of the appeal had been met and dismissed the case on its merits, observing that the applicant’s claim was contrary to the terms of the contract. 13.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant lodged another appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court. The hearing, which was originally set for 15 March 1999, was subsequently adjourned to 10 December 2001 and then to 3 June 2002. Meanwhile, on 11 February 2002, the case was struck from the first division and transferred to the sixth division of the court. A new hearing date was set for 13 January 2003. Subsequently, between 13 January 2003 and 17 June 2008 the case was adjourned on sixteen consecutive occasions. 14.  The hearing took place on the latter date. 15.  In a judgment dated 6 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the ruling of the appellate court. In particular, it observed that the finding of the Court of Appeal that the procedure had been respected by the mere filing of the administrative appeal to the municipality and the assignment of a registration number without any notification by a bailiff or other public body being necessary was contrary to the law. Subsequently, the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant’s recourse de novo and dismissed it as inadmissible because the applicant had not complied with the notification requirement (judgment no. 2757/2008). This judgment was finalised on 29 January 2009.