5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Belgrade. 6.  On 15 June 2004 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. He suffered severe serious injuries. An investigation into this incident was initiated in November 2004 and terminated in May 2005, with no criminal charges being brought. 7.  On 10 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim for non-pecuniary damages with the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade against the Belgrade City’s Transportation Company (Gradsko saobraċajno preduzeċe Beograd). 8.  On 27 December 2007 the Second Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. On 3 July 2008 the District Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the first instance. 9.  On 23 October 2009 the Second Municipal Court adopted a partial decision (delimičnu presudu) against which the applicant and the defendant appealed on 7 December 2009 and 10 December 2009, respectively. 10.  On 30 September 2010 the Court of Appeals in Belgrade quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance for a re-trial. 11.  In the meantime, on 22 December 2009, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court complaining under Article 32 of the Constitution (a provision which corresponds to Article 6 of the Convention) about the overall fairness of domestic proceedings and their length. The Constitutional Court’s decision was rendered on 4 November 2010. No violation in respect of the applicant’s complaints was found. 12.  Due to applicant’s change to the value of the dispute (vrednost spora), on 31 October 2010 the Court of First Instance ruled that it had no further jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s complaint. The case was then sent to the High Court in Belgrade. 13.  On 20 June 2013 the High Court adopted a partial judgment against which the applicant and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals in Belgrade. 14.  On 6 June 2014 the Court of Appeals partly quashed the impugned judgment. 15.  It would appear that the case is still pending before the High Court. 16.  Additionally, on 28 October 2014 the applicant lodged a new submission with the Constitutionals Court concerning, inter alia, the length of the impugned proceedings. It would appear from the facts of the case that the Constitutional Court has not yet responded.