4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Dnipropetrovs’k, Ukraine. 5.  On 4 August 1993, the applicant was attacked and injured by Mr Ts., when trying to prevent the latter from stealing State property. 6.  The next day a criminal investigation was started by the Apostolivskiy District Police Department. 7.  On 5 October 1993 the applicant was granted the status of an aggrieved party. 8.  The criminal investigation under Article 101 of the Criminal Code (grievous bodily harm) was completed by the Kryvyy Rig Prosecutors’ Office on 8 May 1994 and referred to the court. 9.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant introduced a civil claim against Mr Ts. in the framework of the pending criminal proceedings. 10.  On 11 June 1996, Apostolivsky District Court of Dnipropetrovs’k Region found Mr Ts. guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the applicant and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years pending probation. The civil claim of the applicant was not granted due to a lack of supporting documents. 11.  On 27 August 1996, the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the sentence was too lenient and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 12.  On 20 May 1998, the Apostolivsky District Court found Mr Ts. guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years pending probation. 13.  On 21 July 1998, the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court, again for imposing too lenient a sentence, and remitted the case for fresh consideration to another first instance court. 14.  The same day, by a separate decision, the Regional Court found that the first instance court had not complied with its previous decision of 27 August 1996 and had delayed the consideration of the case on the merits for two years. The court decided to inform the Chairman of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court about this so that the appropriate measures would be taken. 15.  On 6 August 2001, the Nikopolskiy District Court sentenced Mr Ts. to four years’ imprisonment. By the same decision, the court awarded the applicant UAH 212.35 (around 34 euros – “EUR”) in material damages and UAH 5,000 (around EUR 806) in moral damages. 16.  On 30 October 2001, the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 17.  On 10 April 2003 the Nikopolskiy District Court sentenced Mr Ts. to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years pending probation. By the same decision, the court awarded the applicant UAH 875.33 (around EUR 141) in material damages and UAH 8,000 (around EUR 1,290) in moral damages. 18.  On 18 August 2003 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the first instance court and terminated the proceedings on the ground that a further prosecution of Mr Ts. was time-barred. The court also advised the applicant to lodge a separate civil claim against Mr Ts. 19.  On 8 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the appellate court and confirmed that the applicant had to lodge a separate civil claim against Mr Ts. for compensation for damages. The Court has not been informed whether the applicant lodged a separate civil claim. 20.  According to the Government, during the period between 11 September 1997 and 18 August 2003, the applicant caused delays by:
- being absent from 18 hearings;
- failing to give proper authority to his lawyer (once);
- failing to notify his change of address (once);
- challenging judges (twice); and
- failing to submit one of his cassation appeals within the prescribed time limits. 21.  The Government further noted that on several occasions the proceedings were suspended for some months due to the illness of the defendant. 22.  According to the applicant only 6 hearings had been suspended due to his absence. He also submitted that he had been present, or his absence had been authorised by the court, at some of the hearings mentioned by the Government.