4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia. 5.  On 15 July 1995 he lent 40,000 German marks to Z.G. and G.G. on the condition that the loan be repaid within 15 days of a request for repayment. 6.  On 25 August 1995 Z.G. and G.G. died. Subsequently, proceedings concerning the inheritance of their estate commenced before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru). 7.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court against I.G. and M.G. (Z.G. and G.G.’s children) claiming repayment of the loan. 8.  I.G. and M.G. were absent from the first hearing of 30 October 1995 as they had not been summoned. 9.  The second hearing was held on 20 November 1995 in the presence of the applicant and M.G. 10.  On 12 June 1997 and on 16 July 1998 the applicant requested the court to deal with his claim as soon as possible. 11.  At the third hearing on 17 November 1998 the court requested the applicant to submit some additional information. 12.  At the fourth hearing of 18 May 1999 the court stayed the proceedings pending the completion of the inheritance proceedings indicated in paragraph 6 above. 13.  On 4 June 1999 the applicant submitted the information requested on 17 November 1998. 14.  On 24 June 1999 the applicant again requested the court to deal with his claim as soon as possible. 15.  I.G. and M.G. did not appear at the fifth hearing of 2 September 1999 although they were duly summoned. 16.  At the sixth hearing on 21 September 1999 the court adjourned the trial sine die pursuant to a request of the representative of I.G. and M.G. 17.  On 26 September 2001 the inheritance proceedings ended and the proceedings for repayment of the loan resumed on 10 January 2002. 18.  On 6 February 2002 the court held the seventh hearing and, on the same date, gave its judgment allowing the applicant’s claim. That judgment became final because no appeal was lodged. 19.  On 17 April 2002 the applicant obtained an order enforcing the judgment. 20.  On 6 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to speed up the enforcement proceedings. 21.  On 9 December 2003 the court scheduled for January 2004 an on-site assessment of the value of an apartment belonging to I.G. and M.G. An expert appointed by the court was not able to enter the apartment as I.G. and M.G. were not present. Nevertheless, the expert assessed the value of the apartment and submitted his report to the court on 2 February 2004. 22.  On 17 May 2004 the court established the value of the apartment. 23.  On 20 July 2004 the court held the first auction but the apartment was not sold. 24.  The enforcement proceedings are still pending.