4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Radoviš. 5.  On 25 December 1984 the applicant brought a compensation claim against his employer (“the employer”) for unpaid salary, subsistence and annual-leave allowance for the period between 24 June and 31 December 1983. During that time, he was seconded to different posts in the construction sector in Iraq. 6. On 17 September 1987 the then Štip Labour Court of First Instance (Основен суд на здружен труд Штип) partially upheld the applicant’s claim. On 9 December 1987 the then Skopje Labour Court of Macedonia (Суд на здружен труд на Македонија, Скопје) upheld the parties’ appeals and remitted the case for re-examination. 7. On 19 November 1991 the then Štip Labour Court of First Instance partially upheld the applicant’s claim and ordered the employer to pay him the amount due. On 12 May 1992 the then Štip District Court (Окружен суд во Штип) quashed that decision and remitted the case for a renewed examination. 8.  On 28 April 1994 the then Radoviš Municipal Court (Општински суд во Радовиш) dismissed the applicant’s claim. That decision was quashed by the then Štip District Court’s decision of 12 January 1995. 9. On 26 December 1995 the then Radoviš Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 7 November 1996 the Štip Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд Штип) upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. It found that the lower court had not complied with its previous instructions. 10. The hearing fixed for 28 October 1997 was postponed due to the absence of his representative who had not been summoned, notwithstanding the applicant’s presence,. 11. On 10 November 1997 the Radoviš Court of First Instance (Основен суд во Радовиш) (“the first instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that he had been remunerated in accordance with the then employer’s internal regulations. It also held that all four expert reports obtained in the course of the proceedings had been inconsistent and unreliable. 12. On 20 April 1999 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and ordered a retrial. It ordered, inter alia, an alternative expert examination. 13. On 13 April 2000 another expert gave his opinion setting out the exact figures of the amount due to the applicant. 14. On 15 May 2000 the first instance court ruled partially in favour of the applicant. The Štip Court of Appeal set aside that decision on 24 January 2001. 15.  On 22 May 2003 the first instance court partially upheld the applicant’s claim. Sums were awarded both in foreign and national currency. On 26 December 2003 the Štip Court of Appeal accepted the employer’s appeal and overturned the first instance court’s decision as to an award of interest. It upheld the remainder of the decision. 16. On 4 March 2003 the first instance court rejected as inadmissible the employer’s appeal on points of law as the value of the dispute had been below the statutory threshold. 17. On 18 May 2004 the State Public Prosecutor’s Office brought before the Supreme Court a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста) as the award indicated in the national currency had been wrongly calculated. On 26 February 2005 the Supreme Court accepted that request and quashed the lower courts’ decisions. 18. On 22 December 2005 the proceedings resumed before the first instance court. On 2 February 2006 they were suspended as insolvency proceedings had been opened against the employer. After the applicant had unsuccessfully asked for his claim to be recognised in the course of these latter proceedings, he requested the first instance court to resume the substantive proceedings. 19. On 23 February 2006 the first instance court declared itself incompetent ratione loci to decide the applicant’s case. 20. On 5 October 2006 the Strumica Court of First Instance accepted the applicant’s claim in the original proceedings. On 6 November 2006 the employer appealed that decision before the Štip Court of Appeal. The case is pending before that court. 21.  Between November 2002 and March 2005 the applicant requested the President of the first instance court, the Ombudsman, the President of the Supreme Court and the State Judicial Council to expedite the proceedings.