Moreover, as the Court has consistently emphasised, the assessment of evidence is a matter for the jurisdiction of the domestic courts (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I) and cannot be examined by the Court unless there is reason to believe that the domestic courts drew arbitrary or grossly unfair conclusions from the facts submitted to them (see Mariniello v. Italy (dec.), no. 36012/97, 28 September 1999; Waldberg v. Turkey, no. 22909/93, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 82-B, p. 25).

However, examining the overall duration of the subsequent proceedings under consideration - a period which does not seem prima facie unduly long in the light of the case-law of the Convention organs - and taking into account the judgment adopted on 16 January 2007 by the Court in relation to application no. 8147/02, where a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was found as regards the proceedings which had lasted approximately fourteen years at that point, the Court considers that the remaining length of the proceedings has not been excessive (see Mariniello v. Italy (dec.), no. 36012/97, 28 September 1999, and Kosti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, §§ 32-37, 3 May 2007).

Taking into account the factual complexity that the expropriated property's value assessment presented, as well as the fact that the case passed through five examinations by two instances, and that no periods of inactivity were attributed to the State authorities, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among several authorities, Mariniello v. Italy (dec.), no. 36012/97, 28 September 1999; ÇakıroÄŸlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 52875/99, 5 December 2000).

It finds, therefore, that there has been compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Mariniello v. Italy (dec.), no. 36012/97, 28 September 1999).

Examining the overall duration of the proceedings - a period which does not seem prima facie unduly long in the light of the case-law of the Convention organs -, as well as the complexity of the case and the fact that the case was examined before six instances, and taking also into account that no substantial periods of inactivity were attributable to the State authorities, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Mariniello v. Italy (dec.), no. 36012/97, 28 September 1999).