5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in San Jose, the United States of America. 6.  On 6 September 2005 the applicant brought proceedings against the private company X and a third party, seeking the recovery of property rights pertaining to land, both on his own behalf and on behalf of six other plaintiffs who were allegedly co-owners of the property. 7.  Between 11 October 2005 and 24 March 2008 the Ploieşti District Court (hereinafter referred to as “the District Court”) held more than fifteen hearings in the case in order to allow the parties to add evidence to the file. 8.  On 21 December 2005 the District Court ordered the applicant to inform it by 31 January 2006 of the home addresses of the other six plaintiffs on whose behalf he had brought the proceedings. The applicant complied with the court’s order. 9.  On 29 November 2006 the applicant informed the District Court on behalf of himself and the other six plaintiffs of the cancellation of the legal representation contract they had signed with their initial legal representative. 10.  On 24 March and 21 April 2008 the District Court adjourned the proceedings on procedural grounds and in order to allow the applicant to add to the file the relevant documents proving that he and the other six plaintiffs were entitled to claim the land in question and that the applicant was authorised by the other plaintiffs to represent them. The court also noted that the proceedings would be suspended in accordance with the relevant civil procedure rules if the applicant failed to comply with the court’s request to add the requisite documents. 11.  On 16 June 2008 the District Court suspended the proceedings in accordance with Article 242 § 1(2) of the former Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “CCP” – see paragraph 25 below) on the grounds that none of the parties had attended the hearing scheduled for that date. 12.  On 26 January 2009 the District Court amended of its own motion the decision of 16 June 2008. It held that some of the parties had in fact attended the hearing of 16 June 2008. However, the proceedings had had to be suspended on the grounds that, according to the available evidence, four of the other six plaintiffs had died prior to 2005 and the applicant had taken no steps to identify the heirs of the deceased parties in order to enable the court to summon them as parties to the proceedings. 13.  The applicant appealed on points of fact and points of law against both the decision of 16 June 2008 and that of 26 January 2009 (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above). 14.  On 8 October and 3 December 2009 the Prahova County Court (hereinafter referred to as the “the County Court”) adjourned the aforementioned appeal proceedings brought by the applicant in order to allow the private company X to prepare its defence and the applicant to submit proof of the steps he had taken to identify the home addresses of the other six plaintiffs, and to serve a summons on the six plaintiffs by publishing it in a national newspaper. 15.  On 11 February 2010 the County Court allowed the applicant’s aforementioned appeal against the District Court’s decisions and ordered the reopening of the proceedings. It held that there was no evidence in the file that four of the other plaintiffs had died or that the first-instance court had adjourned the proceedings in order to allow the applicant to submit proof of those deaths. Also, the decision of 26 January 2009 to amend the decision of 16 June 2008 (see paragraph 12 above) had been unlawful. 16.  On 2 July 2010 the applicant asked the President of the District Court to order that court to start the re-examination of the case. He complained that even though the County Court had ordered the reopening of the proceedings in the case in February 2010, the District Court had still not resumed the examination thereof. 17.  On 14 October and 9 December 2010 and 3 March 2011 the District Court adjourned the proceedings on procedural grounds to allow the plaintiffs’ legal representative to add documents to the file and to prepare his defence, and for the court to deliberate. In addition, it ordered the applicant to clarify whether the other six plaintiffs were still alive and, if not, to establish who were their heirs. The court further noted that the proceedings would be suspended according to the civil procedure rules if the applicant failed to comply with the court’s request. 18.  On 8 March 2011 the District Court suspended the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant had failed to clarify whether the other six plaintiffs were still alive and if not who were their heirs. It noted that the applicant had made some attempts to obtain the requested information from the relevant domestic authorities, but he had failed to provide relevant information about the plaintiffs which would have enabled the authorities to identify them. Moreover, the summonses sent by the court to the known foreign addresses of the other six plaintiffs provided by the applicant had either not been received by the recipients or had been returned because the intended recipients had been unknown at those addresses. The applicant appealed on points of fact and points of law against the decision. 19.  On 18 January and on 14 and 21 March 2012 the County Court adjourned the appeal proceedings in order to allow the six other plaintiffs to be publicly summonsed, and for the parties to make written submissions. 20.  On 28 March 2012 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of fact and points of law against the District Court’s decision of 8 March 2011 (see paragraph 18 above). It held, amongst other things, that the applicant had acted as the other six plaintiffs’ representative without being able to prove that they were still alive or to identify their heirs, if such heirs existed. Since he was the one who had brought the proceedings, he had a duty to produce evidence in respect of the persons he was representing and was solely responsible for the way he had chosen to formulate his action before the court. The court was bound by the procedural framework set by the applicant. Since he had chosen to sign the application to the court both on his own behalf and on that of other persons, he should have been aware that he would be responsible for proving his status and his right to act as a representative. 21.  On 29 November 2012 the County Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal for a review of proceedings instituted by the applicant against the final judgment of 28 March 2012 as having been lodged out of time. 22.  On 11 March 2013 the County Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal for the annulment of the proceedings instituted by the applicant against the final judgment of 28 March 2012 as ill-founded. 23.  On 23 May 2013 the District Court of its own motion declared the proceedings brought by the applicant on 6 September 2005 (see paragraph 6 above) to be barred by limitation on account of his inaction. It held that for more than a year the applicant had failed to make any request for the proceedings to be reopened. The applicant appealed on points of fact and points of law against the decision. 24.  By a final judgment of 27 March 2014 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of fact and points of law against the District Court’s decision of 23 May 2013 (see paragraph 23 above). It reiterated the reasons provided by the first-instance court. It also held that the extraordinary appeals lodged by the applicant against the judgment of 28 March 2012 (see paragraph 20 above) had not put a stop to the bar by limitation, because they could not be considered as procedural acts aimed at reopening the proceedings.