4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul. Until 1990, he worked as an electricity meter reader for the Turkish Electricity Institution (“TEK” – Türkiye Elektrik Kurumu). Following the privatisation of electricity distribution, TEK and the AKTAŞ Electricity Company (“AKTAŞ”) signed an agreement. As a result, the unit for which the applicant worked was transferred to AKTAŞ. The applicant was thereafter employed by AKTAŞ on a contractual basis. 5.  In the meantime, in 1993 TEK was divided into two State-owned companies, namely TEDAŞ (Türkiye Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş. – responsible for the distribution of electricity) and TEAŞ (Türkiye Elektrik Üretim Şirketi – responsible for electricity production). 6.  On 21 January 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the agreement between TEK and AKTAŞ. Subsequently, on 31 January 1994 the applicant was dismissed from AKTAŞ. 7.  On 16 June 1994 the applicant applied to TEDAŞ, the successor of TEK, to be reinstated in his former post. However his request was rejected. 8.  Contesting the refusal of TEDAŞ to reinstate him in his former post, the applicant initiated proceedings in the Istanbul Administrative Court. He requested to be reinstated in his former post. 9.  While the proceedings were pending, in 1995 BEDAŞ (Boğaziçi Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş.) was established as a subsidiary company of TEDAŞ and became responsible for the distribution of electricity in Istanbul. 10.  On 12 November 1997 the Istanbul Administrative Court found in favour of the applicant and annulled the decision of TEDAŞ refusing to reinstate the applicant. 11.  TEDAŞ appealed against the judgment, requesting that the execution of the judgment of 12 November 1997 be suspended. On 9 July 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for suspension. 12.  On 30 September 1999, in line with the Istanbul Administrative Court’s judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal filed by TEDAŞ. This decision was served on the applicant on 9 December 1999. 13.  While the proceedings were pending before the Supreme Administrative Court, on 24 February 1999 the Prime Minister agreed to appoint the applicant to a similar post in BEDAŞ. Following this decision, on 29 April 2000 the Director General of BEDAŞ approved the decision of the Executive Board to appoint the applicant to a post in its Cağlayan Branch. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 13 May 2000. The applicant did not take up his duties and as a result the proposal was withdrawn. 14.  On 4 September 2000 the applicant applied to BEDAŞ to be reinstated in his post, but his request was rejected. 15.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant initiated a second set of proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court jointly against TEDAŞ and BEDAŞ. Pursuant to Article 28 § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Code, he requested compensation for the failure of the authorities to comply with the court decision ordering his reinstatement in his former post. He also requested the payment of his monthly salary and related monetary entitlements for the periods during which he had been entitled to assume his duties in accordance with the judgment of the domestic courts upholding his claim to reinstatement. 16.  On 29 May 2001 the Istanbul Administrative Court held that the applicant should have initiated compensation proceedings or applied to TEDAŞ within sixty days following the notification of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. It accordingly dismissed the case. 17.  The applicant appealed. On 12 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a partial decision. It decided to uphold the decision of the Istanbul Administrative Court as regards the applicant’s claim for payment of his monthly salary and related monetary entitlements. In this respect, it held that, pursuant to Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the applicant should have applied to the administrative authorities to request payment of his monthly salary and other related entitlements within sixty days following the notification of the domestic court decision which annulled the administrative decision dismissing him. As regards the applicant’s second complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the court decision ordering his reinstatement in his former post, the court held that this part of the case had been brought within the ten-year statutory time limit, and was not time-barred. It accordingly quashed the decision of the Istanbul Administrative Court in this respect. 18.  On 28 October 2005 the Istanbul Administrative Court delivered its decision. It found that following the judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court, the applicant had in fact been offered a position in BEDAŞ (the subsidiary of TEDAŞ). However he had not taken up his duties. As a result, the court held that the domestic authorities had fulfilled their obligation to implement the court decision ordering the applicant’s reinstatement. It accordingly dismissed the case. This decision was notified to the applicant on 2 June 2006. 19.  On 14 June 2006 the applicant appealed and the case is still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.