5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Danilovgrad. 6.  On 25 March 1988 the applicant’s employer published a competition for an allocation of certain number of flats to its employees. The applicant was among those who applied. However, he was not provided with housing. 7.  On 20 February 1991, upon the applicant’s claim, the Labour Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Podgorica ordered that the employer, which was a respondent party in the domestic proceedings (“the debtor”), and which, at that time, would appear to have been a socially-owned company (društveno preduzeće), re-allocate a certain number of flats. On 28 April 1992 the High Court upheld this judgment, which thereby became final. 8.  On 27 October 1992, at the applicant’s request, the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju). By 16 April 1993 the debtor’s objection (prigovor) and an appeal (žalba) in this regard were rejected. 9.  On 1 February 2000 the debtor’s Flat-Allocation Commission (“the Commission”) issued another decision. On 15 March 2000, pursuant to Article 31 of the debtor’s Statute, the debtor’s Steering Committee (Upravni odbor) annulled this decision and ordered the Commission to conduct a new flat-allocation procedure. 10.  On 6 February 2001 the Court of First Instance ordered the debtor to pay a fine and to comply with the enforcement order within 30 days. On 12 May 2001 the debtor’s objection was rejected. 11.  On 1 March 2001 the Commission issued another decision on flat allocation. However, the applicant was not among the persons to be provided with housing. The decision specified that an objection could be lodged against it with the debtor’s Steering Committee. 12.  On 2 October 2001 the Court of First Instance ordered the debtor to pay another fine and to comply with the enforcement order within 15 days. 13.  On 23 October 2001 the Court of First Instance quashed the previous decision and all the enforcement activities which had been carried out on the grounds that the debtor had rendered a decision on flat-allocation and thus had enforced the 1992 judgment. On 3 November 2001 the applicant’s objection in this regard was rejected. 14.  On 25 January 2002 the applicant and one of his colleagues filed an objection against the Commission’s decision on the flat-allocation (see paragraph 11 above). 15.  On 9 April 2002, having received no response in respect of their objection, the applicant and his colleague filed a separate claim with the Court of First Instance seeking annulment of the debtor’s decision of 1 March 2001. 16.  On 3 June 2004 the Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings (postupak se prekida) until the debtor had decided on the said objection. 17.  On 15 October 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica quashed the previous decision and ordered a re-trial. 18.  On 15 April 2005 the Court of First Instance rejected the claim (odbacuje se tužba) on the grounds that it could be filed only against a final decision, and “there was no doubt that a final decision had not been rendered on the flat-allocation at issue” (u postupku predmetne raspodjele stanova nesumnjivo nije donijeta konačna odluka). The applicant and his colleague were also ordered to pay 1,450 euros (EUR) to the debtor and the interveners for legal costs. 19.  On 9 June 2006 the High Court upheld this decision. 20.  On 13 November 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (revizija). 21.  It would appear from the case file that the debtor has never ruled on the applicant’s objection and thus no final decision on flat allocation has ever been rendered. 22.  It transpires from the case file that as from 10 January 1997, which is when the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were terminated (obustavljen), the debtor was organised as a joint-stock company (akcionarsko društvo). It is unclear who owned the controlling share of stocks at the time. On 27 January 2011 the applicant submitted that the debtor had been liquidated in the meantime, and that its legal successors were the Assembly of Municipality of Podgorica, and the respondent State.