5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Skopje. 6.  On 21 January 1997 a vacancy announcement for a permanent post of teacher in a school in Skopje (“the school”) was advertised in a daily newspaper. The applicant was among the candidates who applied for the post. Among the post requirements specified by the vacancy announcement was a VII/I level of education. 7. On 30 January 1997 the school recruited Ms V.M. for the post advertised. 8. After unsuccessfully challenging that decision before the school’s internal bodies, the applicant brought a civil action before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) requesting annulment of the school’s decision to appoint Ms V.M. as a teacher. He claimed that Ms V.M. did not meet the post requirements concerning the level of education. 9. On 10 March 1998 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim and annulled the school’s decision recruiting Ms V.M. It found that the successful candidate had a VI/I level of education and, accordingly, did not meet the post requirements as set forth in the vacancy announcement. It also ordered the school to make a new choice from among the candidates who met the post requirements (“the order”). Lastly, it ordered the school and Ms V.M. jointly to reimburse the applicant the trial costs (“the costs order”). 10. On 9 November 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the first-instance court had wrongly applied the law, in particular the Primary Education Act (Закон за основнотo образование) in force at the time, under which an individual with a VI/I level of education could be recruited for the type of post involved. Moreover, that court found that the school’s decision of 10 January 1997 ordering recruitment (одлука за потреба за засновање на работен однос) had confirmed that a VI/I level of education was required for recruitment. It concluded that the mere factual error made in the vacancy announcement, which called for a VII/I level of education, did not have any impact on Ms V.M.’s statutory right to apply for and to be appointed to the vacant post. 11. On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија). It overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and confirmed the first-instance court’s decision that the selected candidate had not fulfilled the post requirements as advertised. 12. On 21 May 2001 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings. On 10 July 2001 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the enforcement court”) ordered the school to enforce both orders included in the first-instance court’s decision. 13. On 5 December 2001 the school appealed. On 23 April 2002 the enforcement court partly upheld the school’s appeal, setting aside the order. It noted that the school had in the meantime (on 25 April 2001) made a new selection, reappointing Ms V.M. to the vacant post. The court dismissed the appeal concerning the costs order. 14. On 6 November 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant. It found that a candidate had been recruited following a new procedure. As to the applicant’s argument that the successful candidate had not met the requirements for the post, the Court of Appeal, in the context of enforcement proceedings, found the challenge ill-founded, and instructed the applicant that if he wished to challenge the appointment, it was open to him to bring a civil action for annulment of the school’s decision of 25 April 2001. That decision was served on the applicant on 12 December 2002. 15. On 14 June 2006 the applicant requested the enforcement court to enforce the pecuniary order. On 23 June 2006 that court granted the applicant’s request and ordered the National Bank to transfer the amount due from the school’s to the applicant’s account. The applicant was served with that decision on 29 June 2006. It appears that the sum has not been paid.