4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Graz. He was the managing director and 80% shareholder of Ritz Baugesellschaft m.b.H. 5.  On 12 October 1998 the Graz Civil Regional Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) opened insolvency proceedings (Konkursverfahren) in respect of Ritz Baugesellschaft m.b.H. (hereinafter: “the company”). These proceedings were discontinued on 14 June 2013 for lack of funds to cover the cost (Beschluss auf Aufhebung des Konkurses mangels Kostendeckung). 6.  On 15 April 2002 the applicant initiated official liability proceedings in the name of the company (case no. 20 Cg 79/02y) with the Klagenfurt Regional Court (hereinafter “the Regional Court”) against the Republic of Austria, represented by the Financial Procurator’s Office (Finanzprokuratur). On 5 June 2002 he filed a further claim in his own name (case no. 29 Cg 110/02y). In both claims the applicant sued the Republic of Austria for pecuniary compensation for allegedly unlawful acts and shortcomings of the Regional Court in the course of the insolvency proceedings, which had resulted in pecuniary losses. In addition to that, the applicant and the company requested a declaratory judgment (Feststellungsurteil) concerning the future liability of the Republic of Austria for any further damages arising from the insolvency proceedings. 7.  On 13 November 2002 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s claim filed in the name of the company, holding that the applicant had no locus standi because he could not dispose of the company’s assets as long as the insolvency proceedings were still pending. 8.  On 28 January 2003 the Graz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) granted the applicant’s appeal and referred the case back to the Regional Court. On 25 March 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the extraordinary appeal lodged by the Financial Procurator’s Office. 9.  On 17 September 2003 the Regional Court held a new hearing regarding the company’s claim, in which the parties agreed to suspend the proceedings, pending the outcome of other proceedings, apparently including the claim lodged in the applicant’s name. 10.  On 20 January 2004 the applicant asked for the proceedings lodged in the company’s name to be resumed and submitted a list of witnesses to be questioned by the Regional Court. On 7 April 2004 the Regional Court held a further hearing during which a building expert and a bookkeeping expert as sub-expert were appointed, the sub-expert to be consulted for any further advice. After that, the hearing was adjourned. The proceedings filed in the applicant’s name remained suspended, awaiting the outcome of the resumed proceedings. 11.  On 2 March and 19 July 2005 the applicant filed requests to accelerate the proceedings (Fristsetzungsantrag) under Section 91 of the Court Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz). In the latter request the applicant asked the Court of Appeal to set a time-limit for the delivery of the expert reports by the end of July 2005 and for the Regional Court to hold a hearing for the purpose of questioning further witnesses and discussing the expert reports by 12 October 2005. 12.  On 11 August 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request under Section 91, finding that the Regional Court had not been dilatory; it also stated that the requested time-limits were unrealistic and that the applicant’s request itself had caused further delays. 13.  On 15 March and 19 May 2006 the experts submitted their reports. 14.  On 29 June 2006 the Regional Court held another hearing to discuss the expert reports; eventually the court decided to submit the file to the public prosecutor to examine whether criminal investigations should be instituted against unknown offenders ex-officio and the proceedings stayed until such proceedings were terminated. 15.  On 21 February 2007 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed after the Graz Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft Graz) had discontinued the criminal investigations. 16.  On 28 June 2007 the Regional Court held another hearing and on 12 July 2007 gave its judgment: it partly dismissed and partly granted the claim. 17.  On 14 April 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed parts of the judgment upon both parties’ appeals and, to this extent, remitted the case back to the Regional Court. On 16 December 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. 18.  On 31 May 2010 the Regional Court partly dismissed and partly rejected the applicant’s extended claim as inadmissible after holding hearings on 7 July and on 18 November 2009. 19.  On 15 February 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and on 28 April 2011 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s extraordinary appeal on points of law.