5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Belgrade. 6.  On 30 June 1988 the Municipality of Voždovac, where the applicant was employed as a clerk, issued a decision leaving the applicant unassigned to a specific post, which ultimately resulted in his dismissal. 7.  On 7 October 1988 the applicant thus filed a suit against the Municipality, seeking reinstatement and salary arrears. 8.  On 24 January 1989 the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Belgrade ruled against the applicant, and by 18 May 1989 this decision became final. 9.  The applicant subsequently twice requested the re-opening of the proceedings (podneo predlog za ponavljanje postupka), but to no avail. 10.  On 13 January 1992 the applicant filed a third request of this sort and on 19 March 1996 the Fifth Municipal Court (Peti opštinski sud) in Belgrade (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”), to which the case had been transferred, finally decided to have his case re-opened. 11.  Between 9 October 1997 and February 2004, the Municipal Court obtained four expert reports concerning the exact amount of salary arrears owed to the applicant, as well as the accrued statutory interest. 12.  Following two remittals, on 4 July 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for reinstatement, but partly granted his pecuniary claim. 13.  On 27 June 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s reinstatement, but quashed the remainder of the judgment rendered at first instance and ordered a retrial. 14.  On 6 March 2008 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) rejected the respondent’s appeal on points of law (revizija). 15.  The proceedings before the Municipal Court thereafter continued in respect of the applicant’s pecuniary claim only. Following two additional expert reports which had been provided, on 28 June 2008 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant. 16.  On 17 July 2008 the respondent Municipality filed an appeal against this judgment. According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the District Court.