5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Novi Sad. 7.  The applicant is the owner of a loft in an apartment building in Novi Sad. For some time she experienced problems with a leaking roof, which made her living conditions difficult. In addition, some neighbours had occupied the common premises of the building, including the basement, the waste disposal room and the roof terrace. 8.  On 7 May 1999 the Secretariat for Inspection Affairs of the City of Novi Sad (Sekretarijat za inspekcijske poslove Grada Novog Sada – “the Secretariat”) issued a decision ordering JKP Stan, a State-run public corporation (“the company”), to undertake all the necessary work to the roof above the applicant’s flat. 9.  When the decision of 7 May 1999 became final, the applicant sought its enforcement. The Secretariat failed to respond to her enforcement request, as did the second-instance administrative authority – the Executive Board of the City Assembly of Novi Sad (Izvršni odbor Skupštine grada Novog Sada – “the Executive Board”). Therefore the applicant filed an administrative complaint requesting the Municipal Court in Novi Sad (“the Municipal Court”) to order the administrative authorities to enforce the decision of 7 May 1999. 10.  The applicant also lodged a civil claim with the Municipal Court, requesting the company to perform the necessary repairs. 11.  On 20 June 2002 the Municipal Court, in the civil proceedings, granted the applicant’s request, ordering the company to carry out the necessary repairs. The court also ordered the company to pay to the applicant the amount of 11,447 Serbian dinars (RSD), with statutory interest, for the cost of painting the walls of her flat, and the amount of RSD 15,120 for the costs of the civil proceedings. That decision became final on a later, unspecified, date. 12.   On 9 July 2003 the Municipal Court, in the proceedings following the administrative complaint, ordered the competent municipal authority to decide on the enforcement of the decision of 7 May 1999. 13.  On 27 October 2003 the Secretariat issued an order (zaključak) for the enforcement of the decision of 7 May 1999, at the same time stating that the repairs should be paid for by the tenants’ assembly (skupština stanara) of the applicant’s building. It would appear, however, that no further steps have been taken to enforce the Secretariat’s decision. 14.  On 20 January 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Municipal Court requesting enforcement of the judgment of 20 June 2002. 15.  On 8 February 2005 the Municipal Court partly granted the applicant’s enforcement request. In the enforcement order, the court defined the repairs to be done, at the same time providing that should the company fail to carry out the repairs in a timely manner, the applicant was authorised to engage a third person to perform the repairs, at the company’s expense. The court also awarded the applicant the amount of RSD 1,458 for the costs of the enforcement proceedings. 16.  However, it transpired that with her request for enforcement the applicant had supplied an incorrect bank account number, and therefore the transfer of the sums awarded could not be made. Hence, on 4 March 2005 the Municipal Court issued a request to the applicant for her correct bank details. On at least three occasions the court attempted to serve this request on the applicant, but to no avail. 17.  Ultimately, the applicant provided her correct bank account number on 23 November 2005. 18.  On 7 July 2006 the Municipal Court issued an order (zaključak) requesting the applicant to supply a specification of costs for the repairs to be done. On five occasions the court tried to serve this order on the applicant via bailiffs and the regular postal service. To this end the court requested the police to intervene and serve the applicant with the said order. 19.  On 15 January 2007 the police found the applicant at her home and served her with the order of 7 July 2006. 20.  On 30 January 2007 the applicant supplied a cost specification, and on 2 February 2007 the Municipal Court supplemented the decision of 8 February 2005 (see paragraph 15 above), ordering the company to deposit the amount specified by the applicant to enable her to hire a third person to perform the repairs. 21.  By 12 June 2007 the company had, however, performed the necessary repairs itself. 22.  On 23 October 2007 the company paid the applicant the amount of RSD 24,000 (approximately EUR 300 at the relevant time), by way of “reimbursement” (naknada). However, it is not clear what were the exact legal grounds for this reimbursement. 23.  On 29 October 2007 an expert appointed by the Municipal Court confirmed that the enforcement had been performed as ordered by the judgment of 20 June 2002. 24.  On 16 January 2008 the court decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings, as the judgment of 20 July 2002 had been enforced. It would appear that the applicant did not file an appeal against that decision. 25.  On 16 and 18 June 1999 the Secretariat issued several decisions whereby the applicant’s neighbours S.M, M.P., M.Š., B.O., A.V., Đ.S. and M.S. were ordered to vacate the common premises of the building. 26.  On 14 July 1999 the tenants’ assembly decided, inter alia, to authorise S.M., M.P., B.O., A.V. and Đ.S. to use the former garbage shaft access rooms (“bivši slivnici za đubre”), Đ.S. and M.S. to use small compartments in the common basement (“boksovi u skloništu”), while S.M and M.Š. were authorised to use niches at the common terrace, adjacent to their respective bathrooms (“deo prostora na zajedničkoj terasi-krovu u udubljenju ispred njihovih kupatila”). The right to use the premises was not transferable, while the authorisation was given against the obligation of the persons concerned to pay a certain fee. 27.  However, regardless of that authorisation, on 17 January 2000 the Executive Board upheld the Secretariat’s decisions of 16 and 18 June 1999. 28.  On 26 August 1999 and 3 September 1999 the applicant filed separate administrative requests seeking enforcement of the decisions of 16 and 18 June 1999. 29.  As the Secretariat and the Executive Board failed to respond to the applicant’s requests, on 9 July 2003 the Municipal Court in Novi Sad issued a judgment ordering the competent municipal authority to rule on the applicant’s enforcement requests. At the same time the Municipal Court refused the applicant’s claim in respect of damage suffered due to the non-enforcement, and instructed her to lodge a separate civil claim in that regard. 30.  As it appeared that the municipal authority had still not decided on the applicant’s request for enforcement, on 6 August 2004 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order regarding the judgment of 9 July 2003, that is, ordering the municipal authority to rule on the applicant’s enforcement requests. 31.  Subsequently it transpired that the Secretariat had decided on the applicant’s request and ordered the said enforcements on 27 October 2003. Therefore, on 13 September 2004 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 9 July 2003, as the necessary decisions had been adopted. 32.  It would appear that no further action has been taken in order to evict the tenants from the common premises of the building, which they continue to occupy. 33.  On 21 October 2005, 25 May 2006 and 21 November 2008 the Municipal Court in Novi Sad issued decisions whereby part of the applicant’s pension was to be withheld on account of her failure to pay monthly common charges for the maintenance of the building in question. 34.  The decisions of 21 October 2005 and 25 May 2006 have become final, as the applicant did not appeal against them. The decision of 21 November 2008, according to the information in the case file, is yet to become final, as it appears that it could not be served on the applicant.