4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Skopje. 5.  On 22 January 1991 the applicant brought before the then Labour Court of First Instance (Основен Суд на Здружен Труд Скопје) a civil action against the employer's decisions of 28 November and 10 December 1990 about his reassignment. 6. On 25 March 1991 the Labour Court of First Instance upheld the applicant's claim and annulled the impugned decisions as unlawful. It further ordered the employer to reinstate him to a post equal to his qualifications. 7. On 30 January 1992 the then Skopje District Court (Окружен Суд Скопје) set aside the decision and remitted the case for re-examination. It instructed the lower court, inter alia, to admit in evidence the internal regulations of the employer. 8. At the hearing held on 21 May 1992, the applicant lodged with the court a separate claim for compensation for the difference in salary (“the compensation claim”) caused by his reassignment. On the same day, the Skopje Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје) dismissed the applicant's claims. 9. On 6 November 1992 the Skopje District Court upheld the applicant's appeal and quashed the earlier decision. It held that the lower court had not complied with its earlier instructions and had requested it, inter alia, to order the applicant to further particularise his compensation claim. 10. On 19 March 1993 the Skopje Municipal Court adopted a partial decision (делумна пресуда) by which it annulled the employer's reassignment decisions. It further held that the proceedings concerning the applicant's compensation claim would resume after the decision on the reassignment became final. 11. On 21 October 1993 the District Court of Skopje dismissed the employer's appeal and upheld the lower court's partial decision. 12. As to the applicant's compensation claim, the court adjourned the hearing of 17 February 1994 as the employer's report about the amount of the difference in salary had not been communicated to the applicant in time. At the hearing of 1 March 1994 the applicant requested the court to order a financial expertise. The expert report was provided on 26 April 1994. 13. On 15 June 1994 the proceedings were stayed for three months due to the applicant's absence. 14. On 7 October 1994 the Skopje Municipal Court upheld the applicant's compensation claim and ordered the employer to pay him the sum which had been recommended in the expert report of 26 April 1994. The court referred, inter alia, to the then Labour Relationships Act concerning compensation for damage sustained at work. 15. On 16 March 1995 the District Court dismissed the employer's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. 16. On 30 October 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the employer's appeal on points of law (ревизија), quashed the lower courts' decisions and ordered a retrial. It found that they had incorrectly applied national law concerning the amount of the award. 17. At the hearing of 3 September 1997 the trial court ordered the applicant to further particularise his compensation claim in compliance with the Supreme Court's instructions. The next hearing of 21 November 1997 was allegedly postponed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the order. No document was provided in support. 18. The hearing fixed for 29 December 1997 was adjourned as the court had ordered another financial expertise. At the hearing of 11 May 1998 the court requested a further expert study. 19. The next hearing of 1 December 1998 was adjourned due to the applicant's illness. 20. The hearings of 23 March and 7 June 1999 were also adjourned. 21. On 13 September 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance (Основен Суд Скопје) upheld the applicant's compensation claim and awarded him the same amount as determined on 7 October 1994. 22. By letters of 31 January, 8, 15 and 22 February 2000 the applicant requested the Court of Appeal to give priority to the case. 23. On 10 February 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal (Апелационен Суд Скопје) upheld the employer's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the lower court had ignored the instructions of the Supreme Court concerning the calculation of the award. 24. On 12 June 2000 the applicant applied to the Court of First Instance for expedition of the proceedings. 25. On 1 December 2000 the court suspended the proceedings due to the applicant's absence. The applicant requested reinstatement of the proceedings (враќање во поранешна состојба) as he had been called upon by the Army. The proceedings resumed on 15 May 2001 as the court had found the applicant's excuse justified. The hearing of 21 February 2001 was postponed because of a strike of the court administration. 26. On 19 September 2001 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the applicant's compensation claim and awarded compensation in a smaller amount. 27. On 13 March 2002 the Court of Appeal partially upheld the employer's appeal and overturned the lower court's decision concerning the calculation of interest. It upheld the remainder of the decision.