8.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Sofia. 9.  In March 1991 a statute providing for the restitution of agricultural lands collectivised during the communist regime, the Agricultural Lands Act of 1991, entered into force (see paragraphs 45‑47 below). 10.  Between 19 November 1991 and 2 June 1992 the applicant filed seven applications with the competent agricultural lands’ commission, requesting the restitution of certain plots of agricultural land allegedly owned by his wife’s grandfather. 11.  On 16 September 1992 the commission refused to restitute 492.3 decares claimed by the applicant. Apparently by mistake in the text of its decision the commission referred to a non‑existing application by the applicant. The applicant was informed of the decision by a letter dated 16 February 1993. 12.  On 11 March 1993 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the refusal with the Tervel District Court, arguing that he was entitled to the restitution of the 492.3 decares. 13.  The court held its first hearing on 26 September 1994. Counsel for the applicant presented certain written evidence and requested an adjournment, so as to be able to adduce further written evidence and call certain witnesses. The court granted the request and adjourned the case. 14.  The second hearing, listed for 14 November 1994, was adjourned by request of the counsel for the applicant who stated that he was encountering difficulties with the gathering of certain written evidence. 15.  The third hearing was held on 13 March 1995. Counsel for the applicant presented certain written evidence. The court heard two witnesses called by the applicant and the parties’ closing argument. 16.  The Tervel District Court dismissed the application for judicial review in a judgment of 15 March 1995, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the applicant’s ancestor had owned the land. The applicant was notified of the judgment in writing on 11 April 1995. 17.  On 12 May 1995 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Tervel District Court had erred in assessing the evidence and that his ancestor had owned the land in issue. 18.  At the end of 1996 the Supreme Court was divided into a Supreme Court of Cassation and a Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s case was taken up by the Supreme Administrative Court. 19.  The Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing on 13 March 1997. At the hearing counsel for the applicant presented additional written observations in which he pointed out that the agricultural lands’ commission’s file had not been appended to the court case file and that the Tervel District Court had hence decided the case without acquainting itself with all relevant documents. 20.  On 25 March 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Tervel District Court’s judgement and remitted the case, holding that the non-appending of the commission’s file to the court’s case file had entailed a serious breach of the rules of procedure. 21.  On remittal the Tervel District Court examined the case in three hearings. 22.  The first hearing, listed for 22 May 1997, was adjourned because of the applicant’s request to adduce additional evidence and the agricultural lands’ commission’s failure to produce its file. 23.  The second hearing, listed for 18 July 1997, was adjourned due to the failure of the lands’ commission to produce its file. 24.  On 14 August 1997 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the delay in the proceedings. 25.  The third hearing was held on 2 October 1997. The court examined all evidence, heard the parties’ closing argument and reserved judgment. 26.  On 19 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the delay in the delivery of judgment. The Ministry of Justice notified the chairperson of the Dobrich Regional Court (in whose region the Tervel District Court was) about the complaint. The chairperson of the Dobrich Regional Court eventually sent a letter to the applicant, stating that his complaint was well‑founded and that following his intervention the district court judge had promptly completed the case. 27.  Indeed, on 10 November 1998 judgement was delivered. The Tervel District Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that 492.3 decares of the applicant’s ancestor’s land had been confiscated in 1923 by the Romanian State after the Romanian occupation of the northern part of Bulgaria (the so‑called South Dobrudja). Thereafter, in 1942, pursuant to an international treaty concluded between Bulgaria and Romania („Крайовска спогодба“), a statute providing for the restitution of these lands had been adopted. The court noted that the applicant had not produced evidence that in 1942 his ancestor had requested the restitution of the land in accordance with the procedure set forth in that statute. The court therefore found that the applicant had not proved that his ancestor had been the owner of the land which had been collectivised after 1944. 28.  On 30 November 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Dobrich Regional Court. 29.  The Dobrich Regional Court held one hearing on 14 May 1999. At the hearing counsel for the applicant presented written observations in which she pointed out, inter alia, that the agricultural lands’ commission had issued a decision pursuant to a non‑existent application by the applicant. The applicant had filed several applications for restitution, none of which had borne the number or had related to the quantity of land mentioned in the commission’s decision. The decision was thus invalid. Accordingly, counsel invited the court to quash the lower court’s judgment and remit the case to the agricultural lands’ commission for a fresh examination of the applicant’s applications for restitution. 30.  In a judgment of 3 July 1999 the Dobrich Regional Court quashed the Tervel District Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the agricultural lands’ commission. It held that the commission’s decision had not been issued pursuant to the applicant’s applications and was thus void. 31.  On unspecified dates in 1999 and 2000 the commission issued six separate decisions pursuant to the respective applications of the applicant. The applicant was notified of the decisions by a letter dated 26 April 2000. 32.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged applications for judicial review of all six decisions with the Tervel District Court. 33.  The court fixed a hearing for 7 July 2000. At that hearing it ordered the lands’ commission to produce copies of the decisions and adjourned the case. 34.  Two hearings listed for 27 October and 24 November 2000 were adjourned, because counsel for the applicant could not attend. 35.  The next hearing took place on 18 December 2000. On the motion of the lands’ commission the court decided to hold separate proceedings in respect of each of the commission’s decisions. It instructed the applicant to provide separate applications for judicial review of each decision and adjourned the case. 36.  On an unspecified date in December 2000 the applicant complied with the instructions of the court. Thereafter the court opened six new case files in respect of each of the applications for judicial review. 37.  The court held two further hearings on 9 and 23 March 2001. 38.  On 20 August 2002 the Tervel District Court delivered six judgments, granting the applicant’s restitution claims. 39.  The agricultural lands’ commission lodged appeals on points of law against all six judgments with the Dobrich Regional Court. 40.  The Dobrich Regional Court opened six separate case files and held two hearings on 19 and 26 February 2003. 41.  On 10 March 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court delivered a judgment pursuant to the first appeal. It held that the first judgment of the Tervel District Court had been delivered with respect to the agricultural lands’ commission’s decision of 16 September 1992, which had already been declared void by the Dobrich Regional Court in July 1999 (see paragraph 30 above). It therefore vacated the Tervel District Court’s judgment and discontinued the proceedings. 42.  On 17 March 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court delivered five judgments pursuant to the remainder of the appeals. It held that the Tervel District Court had made material breaches of the rules of procedure. It therefore quashed its judgments and remitted the cases for a fresh examination. 43.  In April 2003 the applicant requested the Tervel District Court to join the proceedings in the five remitted cases. However, in May 2003 he withdrew his request and thereafter withdrew his applications for judicial review, thereby terminating the proceedings. 44.  On an unspecified date, probably in May 2003, the applicant instituted separate proceedings for a declaratory judgment under section 11(2) of the Agricultural Lands Act of 1991. He sought a declaration against the agricultural lands’ commission that he was entitled to restitution. The Tervel District Court held a hearing on 16 June 2003. At the time of the latest information from the parties (5 September 2003) the court had scheduled a hearing for 29 September 2003 and the proceedings were still pending.