4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Skopje. He is the manager and sole owner of a limited liability company, the Tehno‑Interexport company (“T.”), the acquirer and legal successor of the Unimont company (“U.”), which ceased to exist on 4 February 1994. 5.  On 13 June 1990 U. brought a compensation claim against another company. 6.  After the case was remitted for reconsideration by the Supreme Court on 18 November 1998, the Gevgelija Court of First Instance, which had meanwhile become the court with jurisdiction in the matter, partly upheld T.’s claim on 24 October 2005. That decision was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal on 28 June 2006. On 16 April 2008 the Supreme Court rejected as out of time an appeal on points of law submitted by T. 7.  On 3 November 1992 U. requested the enforcement of a court decision given in its favour. On 6 November 1992 the then competent court made an enforcement order against a private company (“the debtor”). On 21 December 1992 the order was set aside. The proceedings continued on a contentious basis. 8.  In proceedings to settle a conflict of jurisdiction (постапка за решавање на судир на надлежности), the case was assigned to the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”), as the court with jurisdiction in the matter. 9.  On 20 November 1998 T. appealed against the decision of 21 December 1992. The Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a decision of 21 February 2001. 10.  On 6 December 2004 the first-instance court stayed the civil proceedings as the debtor, now the defendant, had meanwhile ceased to exist. The parties disagreed as to whether that decision was served on the applicant. According to the Government, the case was archived on 25 December 2005. No evidence was produced as to whether that information was communicated to the applicant. 11.  On 31 January 1994 U. lodged a claim for damages against the then Payment Exchange Office (“the Office”) (Служба за Општествено Книговодство Скопје), a State-run institution. The claim concerned alleged irregularities in the enforcement of U.’s claim, which formed the subject of the eighth set of proceedings (see section H. below). 12.  At a hearing on 27 November 2002 T. indicated the Ministry of Finance, the legal successor of the Office, as the defendant in the proceedings. 13.  On 19 September 2003 the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed T.’s claim as it found that the Ministry of Finance had acted in accordance with the law. That decision was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in judgments of 3 February 2005 and 14 June 2006 respectively. 14.  On 7 April 1995 the applicant requested the enforcement of a final judgment of 20 May 1988 by which three physical persons (“the debtors”) had been ordered jointly to pay him a certain amount of money. On 14 April 1995 the then competent court granted the request and ordered the debtors to pay the debt, together with interest. 15.  On 2 September 1996 the first-instance court annulled the court order of 14 April 1995 in respect of the interest. It upheld the remainder of the order and ordered a recalculation of the interest. In the meantime, two of the debtors died. Their successors took over the debt. On 5 June 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the lower court to continue with the enforcement. 16.  The judgment debt was subsequently partly settled. It remained unenforced in respect of only one of the debtors. 17.  On 6 September 1999 the first-instance court ordered the seizure of that debtor’s salary. The enforcement was not successful as the debtor had meanwhile been dismissed from his job. 18.  On 30 June 2000 the applicant sought an enforcement order in respect of a plot of land owned by the debtor in question. On 13 October 2000 the first-instance court granted that request. 19.  On 27 December 2001 the first-instance court ordered an expert valuation and public sale of the land. It requested the applicant to make an advance payment of the expert’s fees. The court also informed the applicant that the decision of 13 October 2000 had not been served on the debtor. It requested the applicant to assist the court’s bailiff in the service of the order. The applicant stated that he had made two unsuccessful attempts to serve the order on the debtor. 20.  On 8 November 2002 the first-instance court stayed (запира) the proceedings since part of the debt had already been settled and the applicant had failed to pay the expert’s fees in relation to the remaining part of the debt. According to the applicant, he learnt about that decision on 13 March 2007. On 21 March 2007 the applicant appealed. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no further decision has been taken in the course of these proceedings. 21.  On 26 November 1999 T. requested the enforcement of a court decision of 24 December 1998 establishing a judgment debt against a private company (“the debtor”). It proposed that the debtor’s income obtained from renting business premises be transferred into its account. On 30 November 1999 the first-instance court granted that request. On 13 December 1999 it ordered T. to pay court fees and to submit evidence that the premises concerned were in the debtor’s possession. 22.  On 30 March 2000 T. withdrew the initial request since it could not provide a certificate of title regarding the immovable property at issue. It also made a fresh request proposing an alternative means of enforcement, namely an inventory and public sale of the debtor’s movable property. T. also proposed that the court fees be deducted from its account. On 4 April 2000 the first-instance court granted T.’s request. 23.  Owing to structural changes affecting the debtor, on 5 April 2001 T. withdrew its request and submitted a fresh request, seeking the confiscation, valuation and public sale of stakeholders’ shares (удели) in the capital of the debtor’s legal successor (“the successor”). 24.  On 17 May 2001 the first-instance court, in a formal decision, rejected T.’s request of 26 November 1999 as it had failed to comply with the order of 13 December 1999. In a separate decision of the same date, the court granted T.’s request of 5 April 2001 and ordered the successor to register the confiscation order in its records. It also prohibited any trading in the shares. The court ordered their sale once they had been valued and once the decision of 17 May 2001 had become final. One of the successor’s shareholders challenged that decision by means of an appeal, which was rejected on 9 November 2001. 25.  According to the Government, on 18 April 2002 T. was requested to pay the court fees. No evidence was submitted in support of that assertion. 26.  On 22 December 2003 T. informed the first-instance court that its account had been blocked by a competent State agency (Агенција за работа со блокирани сметки) and proposed that the court fees be paid through that agency. 27.  On 11 March 2004 the first-instance court ordered T. to submit information about the successor and its seat, with a warning that in the event of non-compliance the request would be rejected. T. was also ordered to pay the court fees. 28.  It appears that the case was archived, but that it was reopened following a request submitted by T. on 27 September 2005. That transpired from a letter from T. dated 10 August 2006 in which it sent the court information about the successor’s address. On 21 September 2006 T. withdrew the enforcement request. Consequently, on 22 September 2006 the first-instance court stayed the enforcement proceedings. 29.  On 18 December 2006 T. requested enforcement by private bailiffs in accordance with the Enforcement Act of 2005 (see paragraph 52 below). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, T’s enforcement claim has not yet been enforced. 30.  On 11 November 1993 the then competent court ordered the enforcement of a final court decision given in favour of U. against a private company (“the debtor”). On 1 December 1994 that decision became final. 31.  On 12 May 1998 T. requested the court to resume the enforcement proceedings. On 15 July 1998 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) rejected that request as civil proceedings were pending between the parties regarding the same legal issues. On 7 October 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld T.’s appeal and quashed the lower court’s decision. 32.  On 20 September 1999 the first-instance court rejected T.’s request as res judicata. According to the applicant, T. appealed against that decision to the Skopje Court of Appeal, but the case file was allegedly not transmitted by the first-instance court for consideration, since T. did not pay the court fees. No evidence was submitted to confirm the applicant’s allegation. 33.  According to the Government, the case was archived in 2003 and destroyed in 2005. 34.  According to the applicant, the Office (see paragraph 11 above) was ordered, on the basis of a final court decision of 1998, to transfer a certain amount of money from the account of a socially owned enterprise to T.’s account. The Office partly enforced the order, but allegedly failed to transfer interest as requested by T. Consequently, on 12 February 1999 T. requested the court to rectify the allegedly erroneous calculation of the interest by the Office. 35.  On 18 February 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance ordered an agency to draw up an expert opinion as to the calculation of interest and whether the Office had complied with the order. T. was ordered to pay the expert’s fees. The expert allegedly returned the case file to the court to transfer it to the Office. 36.  According to the applicant, the case was never transferred to the Office, as the latter had ceased to exist and no legal successor was specified by law. 37.  It would appear that the case was archived in 2005. The Government confirmed that the case had been archived and destroyed. The applicant did not specify the date when he learnt that the case had been archived. 38.  On 3 November 1992 U. sought an enforcement order against a handcraft cooperative (градежна занаетчиска задруга) (“the debtor”). Оn 17 November 1992 the then competent court made an enforcement order. 39.  After two remittal orders were given, on 11 November 1993 the court noted that the decision of 17 November 1992 had become final in respect of the principal debt and interest (calculated until 15 October 1992) and ordered the Office to transfer the amount due into U.’s account. It further ruled that the proceedings regarding the remaining part of the interest would continue on a contentious basis. That decision was confirmed on 7 December 1993. 40.  In the contentious proceedings, on 1 March 1994 the first-instance court upheld U.’s claim in a decision which was confirmed on appeal on 31 May 1994. On 22 December 1994 the Supreme Court upheld a legality review request (барање за заштита на законитоста) lodged by the public prosecutor and quashed those decisions. 41.  At a hearing held on 9 June 1995, the applicant being the legal representative (законски застапник) of U. stated that the principal debt with interest (calculated until 15 October 1992) had been settled. On the same date, the Commercial Court dismissed as time-barred U.’s claim in respect of the remaining part of the interest. On 15 May 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. On 25 December 1998 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by U. 42.  According to the applicant, in 1996 T. lodged a request for enforcement of a claim (“the first request”) established by a final judgment. As the request had allegedly been lost, on 16 May 1996 T. lodged another request for enforcement (“the second request”). According to the applicant, these two requests concerned the order of 17 November 1992. 43.  On an unspecified date, the Commercial Court requested T. to indicate the final judgment to which the second request referred and to provide a stamp attesting that that judgment had been enforceable (потврда за извршност). T. did not comply with that request. 44.  According to the applicant, no action has been taken since that time because the file was lost and T. was under no obligation to submit a fresh request for the third time.