4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Barnag, Hungary. 5.  The applicant used to work as a business consultant. He was insured with the Mülheim Administrative Health Insurance Association (Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft, hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Association”). 6.  Between 1982 and 1987 he lived and worked in premises of which the wood-panelled walls and ceilings had been treated with timber preservative. During this time he began to suffer from concentration and respiration problems. 7.  In 1986 the medical service of the Insurance Association established that as of 28 October 1986 the applicant was incapable of practising his profession. A specialist in internal diseases informed the Insurance Association that the applicant was presumably allergic to timber preservatives. 8.  The applicant subsequently gave up his profession, moved out and later moved to Hungary. 9.  The applicant then applied to have his illness recognised as work-related within the meaning of the Occupational Disease Act (Berufskrankenverordnung). 10.  In the course of these administrative proceedings a number of expert opinions and statements were obtained. 11.  On 25 October 1990 the Insurance Association rejected his application. 12.  On 19 November 1990 the Appeals Board of the Insurance Association dismissed his administrative appeal. 13.  On 19 December 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Duisburg Social Court for the recognition of his health problems as a work-related disease within the meaning of the Occupational Disease Act (Berufskrankenverordnung). He announced that he would file further submissions. 14.  On 30 July 1991, after having received four reminders from the Social Court, the applicant filed those submissions. 15.  Between August 1991 and August 1992 both the Insurance Association and the applicant filed numerous further pleadings and additional documents. 16.  On 3 August 1992 the Social Court scheduled the hearing – first for 19 August 1992 and then, on the applicant’s requests for a postponement, for 26 October 1992. At the hearing the parties agreed that Prof. S., an expert at the institute for hygiene and micro-biology at the University of Bochum, should be commissioned to produce an expert opinion. 17.  On 10 December 1992 the Social Court appointed the expert. 18.  In July 1993, after receiving a reminder from the Social Court, the expert announced that on account of his workload and health problems, he would not submit his report until December 1993. 19.  On two occasions in the course of the year 1994 the Social Court set the expert a time-limit for the submission of his report – the latter deadline was further extended twice on the ground that the expert had to undergo an operation. In February and March 1995 the court warned the expert that it would fine him in the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) if he failed to submit the expert opinion again. 20.  On 30 March 1995 Prof. S. submitted his report. He returned the files in May. 21.  On 21 August 1995, following an extension of the time-limit set by the Social Court and a reminder, the Insurance Association submitted its observations on the expert opinion. 22.  Thereafter, the court informed the applicant that it intended to obtain another expert opinion. 23.  In December 1995 the applicant filed his observations on the expert opinion. 24.  In January 1996 the Nordrhein-Westfalen Social Court of Appeal requested the files, since further proceedings on the applicant’s grade of disability were pending before it. It returned the files in May 1996. 25.  In July 1996 the Social Court again informed the parties that it intended to obtain another expert opinion. The applicant agreed to an examination by Dr. Sch., a specialist in environmental medicine. 26.  On 20 November 1996 he paid the advance requested by the court on 4 September 1996. 27.  On 4 April 1997 Dr. Sch. submitted his report. 28.  The Social Court then set the Insurance Association a time-limit of eight weeks to submit further observations. On 10 December 1997, having received a reminder from the court in November, the Insurance Association submitted the observations. 29.  On 8 January 1998 the Social Court quashed the decision of the Insurance Association of 25 October 1990 and declared that the applicant’s brain-related organic psycho syndrome (hirnorganisches Psychosyndrom), which diminished his ability to concentrate and his memory, was the result of a work-related disease within the meaning of the Occupational Disease Act. 30.  On 20 February 1998 the Insurance Association lodged an appeal with the Nordrhein-Westfalen Social Court of Appeal. In April 1998 it further reasoned the appeal and thereby also submitted a further expert statement. 31.  On 29 June 1998 – having been sent a reminder by the court and given access to the files – the applicant opposed the appeal. Between August 1998 and January 1999 he filed further observations. 32.  On 5 February 1999 the Court of Appeal scheduled the hearing for 10 March 1999. On the applicant’s request to postpone the hearing the court cancelled it. 33.  On 3 May 1999 the Court of Appeal informed the parties that it considered another expert opinion and the examination of the applicant to be necessary. It also requested the applicant to submit information as to his medical record. 34.  In August 1999, in response to the court’s reminder to submit the requested documents, the applicant replied that correspondence was usually delayed for about three weeks in Hungary and requested more time for the submission of the documents. 35.  Subsequently the court again reminded the applicant to submit the requested documents and moreover set him a deadline. It also rejected his request to be examined in Hungary. 36.  On 12 January 2000 it commissioned an expert opinion from a Dr. D., to be submitted by 12 May 2000. 37.  On 10 August 2000, having received a reminder from the court in May, Dr. D. submitted his report. 38.  On 3 November 2000 the Insurance Association filed further observations, including a further medical statement by a Dr. Som. 39.  In November 2000 and January 2001 the Court of Appeal requested an additional report from Dr. D. and further information from the applicant and his Hungarian doctor. 40.  In April and June 2001 the Insurance Association submitted further documents – partly also expressly requested by the court. 41.  On 26 July 2001 the Court of Appeal commissioned a Dr. K. to prepare a further expert opinion on the basis of the files. 42.  In August 2001 the applicant declared that he had always been willing to be examined. The court therefore amended its decision respectively. 43.  On 10 September 2001 Dr. K. submitted a report elaborated on the basis of the files. 44.  In October 2001 the applicant missed an appointment with the expert – apparently because he had moved to a new address. 45.  A number of pleadings, in particular by the applicant, followed. The applicant severely criticised the expert opinion. In January 2002 the expert admitted that in parts his report had been based on findings concerning another person. The applicant then requested access to the files. 46.  On 20 March 2002 the applicant filed further observations and also submitted the documents requested by the court on 3 May 1999. 47.  In its reply of 16 April 2002 the Insurance Association submitted a further statement by Dr. Som. The applicant challenged those submissions. 48.  In June 2002 the court asked the applicant whether he was willing to be examined. In July 2002 the applicant requested more time to reply. 49.  On 30 September 2002, following a number of pleadings and orders, the Court of Appeal commissioned a supplementary expert opinion from a Dr. P., another expert in occupational- social- and environmental-medicine, and from a Prof. F. 50.  The applicant did not attend the examination arranged for 22 October 2002. He explained this again by submitting that correspondence in Hungary was often delayed for about three weeks. 51.  On 13 November 2002 he challenged Dr. P. for bias. On 29 January 2003 the court rejected the motion for bias. 52.  On 23 February 2003 the applicant refused to undergo an examination. 53.  The court then first ordered the expert opinion to be based on the files and then, since the applicant opposed to it, decided that no further expert opinion should be obtained. 54.  On 16 May 2003, on the applicant’s request, the hearing which had been scheduled for 21 May 2003 was postponed to 11 June 2003. 55.  On 11 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Social Court of 8 January 1998, dismissed the applicant’s claim and refused to grant leave to appeal on points of law. 56.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal for leave to appeal. 57.  On 11 March 2004 the Federal Social Court rejected this appeal on the ground that he failed to sufficiently substantiate it. 58.  On 28 June 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint.