5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Vinnytsya. 6.  In March 1988 the local authorities decided to allocate to the Podilskprommontazh Association, a State company (“the Association”), a plot of land, on which the applicant’s father’s house stood, in order to build a block of flats on that land. In July 1991 the domestic courts rejected, as unsubstantiated, the Association’s claim against the applicant’s father, who had refused to vacate the house in return for compensation. 7.  In May 1992 the applicant’s father died and the applicant and his relatives (Mrs D., Mrs M. and Mr Z.) inherited the house. According to the applicant, in November 1992, despite the above-mentioned court decision, the Association partially destroyed the house and he could no longer live in it. 8.  In September 1994 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Association, seeking compensation for the partial destruction of the house and reimbursement of the cost of renting a flat due to the impossibility of living in the damaged house. 9.  On 19 November 1996 the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya partially granted the applicant’s action. On 3 April 1997, following an objection (протест) lodged by a local prosecutor, the Presidium of the Vinnytsya Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 10.  On 5 April 2000 the Leninskyy Court partially granted the applicant’s action, awarded him 167,847[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) for pecuniary damage and UAH 5,000[2] for non-pecuniary damage and rejected, as unsubstantiated, his claim for reimbursement of rental fees. The court based its pecuniary-damage award on a report of 5 August 1999, prepared upon a request it made on 1 June 1999, by the experts of the Kherson State Technical Inventory Bureau (“the Bureau”). As no appeal was lodged, the judgment became final. 11.  On 22 June 2000 the Presidium of the Vinnytsya Regional Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, a local prosecutor’s objection against the judgment. 12.  Between 5 April 2000 and 28 September 2007 the Association repeatedly challenged the initiation of the enforcement proceedings, sought their suspension or variation of the manner of the enforcement of the judgment. According to the Government, the judgment was enforced in the amount of UAH 8,856.77[3]. 13.  On 10 April 2006 the Association requested the Leninskyy Court to reopen the proceedings in the light of newly-discovered circumstances. It argued that the expert report had been prepared not by the Bureau but, instead, by its experts acting in a private capacity. It stated that it had learned about that from letters of the Bureau and the local department of the State Security Service issued, respectively, on 13 and 14 March 2006. The applicant filed his comments challenging the request. 14.   On 30 May 2006 the local police rejected, as unsubstantiated, a criminal complaint by the Association’s chairman of 26 May 2006 against the above experts, based on the same submissions as the Association’s request to the court, for lack of corpus delicti in the experts’ actions. 15.  On 28 September 2007 the court granted the request, quashed the judgment of 5 April 2000 and ordered a fresh examination of the case. Referring to the aforementioned letters of the Bureau and the State Security Service, it found that the experts of the Bureau, who had prepared the impugned report, had acted in a private capacity and not on behalf of the Bureau. In this respect, it noted that the report had borne no stamp and no registration number of the Bureau. The court thus concluded that its ruling of 1 June 1999 had not been complied with, and found this to constitute a “newly-discovered fact”. 16.  On 25 March 2008 the same court returned the applicant’s claim unexamined on account of his alleged failure to attend several hearings. 17.  On 26 June 2008 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal quashed that ruling on the ground that the applicant had not been duly informed of those hearings and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 18.  The proceedings are still pending before the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, which on 29 July 2008 joined them to the second set of proceedings (see below). 19.  In the course of the proceedings seven hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request or due to his failure to appear and five hearings were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear. This protracted the proceedings to approximately ten months. Thirteen hearings were adjourned at the respondent’s request, due to its or third parties’ failure to appear, due to the absence or illness of a judge or due to the applicant’s absence from several hearings of which he was not duly informed (see paragraph 17 above). Two forensic examinations lasted in total for about three and a half months. 20.  In October 1994 the applicant instituted court proceedings against Mrs M. and Mr Z., seeking separation of the inherited property. 21.  On 11 July 1995 the Leninskyy Court endorsed the friendly settlement reached by the parties. 22.  On 13 December 2000 the Supreme Court, following an objection lodged by its Deputy Head, quashed the ruling of 11 July 1995 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Popilnya Court. 23.  On 26 November 2001 the Association instituted proceedings in that court against the applicant, Mrs M. and Mr Z., challenging the validity of the inheritance certificate issued to them. 24.  On 16 April 2002 the court suspended the proceedings for separation of the inherited property pending the outcome of the proceedings brought by the Association. 25.  On 26 July 2002 the court transferred the case to the Polonne Court, which on 2 August 2004 joined both proceedings. 26.  On 12 January 2005 the court returned the claims of the applicant and the Association unexamined on account of their alleged failure to attend several hearings. 27.  On 18 April 2005 the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that ruling on the ground that the parties had not been duly informed of those hearings and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 28.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an additional claim against Mrs D. for separation of the inherited property. 29.  On 21 July 2005 the case was transferred to the Pecherskyy Court, which on 19 October 2005 joined that claim to the proceedings. 30.  On 15 November 2007 the same court, at the request of the Association, returned the latter’s claim unexamined. 31.  Between 16 May and 29 July 2008 the proceedings were suspended at the applicant’s request pending the outcome of the first set of proceedings (see paragraphs 16-17 above). 32.  On 29 July 2008 the court joined the first set to the second set of proceedings, which are still pending before it. 33.  In the course of the proceedings twelve hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request or due to his failure to appear and eleven hearings were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear. This protracted the proceedings for approximately one year and three months. Sixteen hearings were adjourned at the other parties’ requests, due to those parties’ or experts’ failure to appear, due to the absence or illness of a judge or due to the parties’ absence from several hearings of which they were not duly informed (see paragraph 27 above). Three forensic examinations lasted in total for about one year and eight months.