5.  The applicant's aunt (V.) inherited a plot of land with a barn in 1964. In 1967 the barn was converted for residential use by a number of families. The building is close to the runway of the Spangdahlem military airport, built in 1952. 6.  On 26 August 1994 V. brought an action against the Federal Republic of Germany (“the defendant”) before the Trier Regional Court. She claimed compensation for depreciation in the value of her property due to the noise generated by the Spangdahlem airport. 7.  On 30 September 1994 the Regional Court granted V. a time-limit of three weeks to make further observations. On 21 December 1994 V. made her submissions. 8.  On 24 January 1995 the Regional Court requested V. to make her observations on the defendant's submissions within four weeks. On 18 April 1995 she submitted her observations and on 24 April 1995 the defendant replied to them. 9.  On 17 January 1996 the Regional Court ordered V. to comment on the question as to whether she had been entitled to bring the proceedings in question (Aktivlegitimation) within a time-limit of one month. 10.  On 22 September 1999 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing and requested V. to comment on the defendant's further observations of 16 September 1999. 11.  On 18 November 1999 V.'s representative informed the court that V. had died on 1 February 1996 and that the applicant would continue her proceedings before the Regional Court as the successor of the deceased. 12.  In an oral hearing of 23 November 1999 the court adjourned the proceedings until 18 January 2000. The hearing scheduled on the latter date was cancelled because one judge's post in the chamber of the Regional Court had been abolished. 14.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 it ordered the defendant to grant the applicant reasonable compensation for the depreciation in the value of his property caused by the noise at the airport. The court relied on the findings of several pilot judgments rendered on 6 May 1998 in respect of other residents who owned property near the airport and who had lodged actions for compensation in 1990. It pointed out that, “in view of the long period during which the applicant and his predecessor had patiently awaited the end of the pilot proceedings (ten years), it had to be expected that the defendant would speedily take the necessary measures to compensate for the depreciation of the value of the property in question”. 15.  On 4 January 2001 the defendant appealed to the Koblenz Court of Appeal. At the defendant's request the Court of Appeal extended the time-limit for the submission of its statement of grounds of appeal to 8 May 2001. On 20 March 2001 the statement of grounds of appeal was submitted to the court, which forwarded it to the applicant, granting him a time-limit for submissions of 18 June 2001. On 28 May 2001 the applicant requested the court to dismiss the appeal. 16.  On 11 June 2001 the Court of Appeal made a proposal for a friendly settlement and invited the parties to comment on it by 27 July 2001. On 15 August 2001 the defendant informed the court that it preferred a clarification of the legal issues at stake to a resolution by way of a friendly settlement. On 15 October 2001 the defendant made further submissions. On 30 January 2002 it declared that in principle it would be willing to reach a friendly settlement on the basis of the court's proposal of 11 June 2001 provided that all plaintiffs (including those in the parallel proceedings) gave their full consent to the proposal. 17.  On 23 March 2002 the applicant's representative informed the court that he had not received any statement from the applicant concerning the settlement proposal. On 22 August 2002 the applicant informed the court that he would be ready to accept the proposal under certain circumstances. 18.  On 21 January 2003 the court informed the parties that it would commission an expert report on the noise levels generated by the airport and thereafter undertake a site inspection. 19.  On 24 February 2003 the court stayed the proceedings until regular military aviation noise from the airport resumed, which was expected in August 2003. 20.  On 16 December 2003 the Court of Appeal requested the defendant to inform the court by 15 January 2004 as to whether normal military flight activity had been resumed in the meantime. On 2 February 2004 the information was given. 21.  On 5 February 2004 the Court of Appeal scheduled a date for an oral hearing and a site inspection of 30 June 2004. 22.  On 11 August 2004 the Court of Appeal ordered the commissioning of an expert report. Following a court inquiry, the expert informed it on 23 November 2004 that he was still waiting for important technical information from the American armed forces. On 4 April 2005 the expert submitted his report and the parties were invited to make their comments by 24 May 2005. 24.  On 11 October 2005 the defendant submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement. Due to the subsequent friendly settlement negotiations between the parties the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing to 16 November 2005. However, on 8 November 2005 the defendant informed the court that the negotiations had been unsuccessful. 25.  On 16 November 2005 the Court of Appeal declared that the defendant was required to pay damages for the loss of value of the applicant's property. However, it amended the Regional Court's judgment in that it found that the depreciation in the value of the applicant's property should be calculated not on the basis of the building's status as a residential dwelling, but on its pre-1967 status, when it was still a barn. 26.  On 9 December 2005 the applicant requested the Federal Court of Justice to grant him leave to appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal's judgment and to extend the time-limit for the submission of his statement of grounds by two months. 27.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant requested the court to fix the value of the amount of his request for leave to appeal on points of law (Beschwerdewert) at more than 20,000 euros (EUR) and to extend the time-limit for his statement of grounds until the court had decided on his request for the value of the amount on appeal to be fixed. The applicant lodged three further requests to extend the above time-limit, up to 12 July 2006. 28.  On 18 July 2006 he submitted a private expert report and requested the court to fix the value of his request for leave to appeal on points of law at EUR 20,452. Between 3 August 2006 and 11 October 2006 he requested three further extensions of the time-limit. 29.  In the meantime, on 21 September 2006 the Federal Court of Justice had fixed the value of the request for leave to appeal on points of law at EUR 20,452. 30.  On 25 October 2006 the applicant submitted his statement of grounds and the defendant made its submissions on 9 January 2007. 31.  On 15 February 2007 the Federal Court of Justice rejected the applicant's request as the matter at issue was not of fundamental importance. On 21 February 2007 that decision was served on the applicant's lawyer.