4.  The applicant is a Croatian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Dubrovnik. 5.  On 25 July 1984 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against two private individuals, seeking to be declared the owner of a flat in Dubrovnik. 6.  In the period before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997), the Municipal Court held fourteen hearings. 7.  In the period after 5 November 1997 the Municipal Court held further sixteen hearings and on 22 November 2001 gave its judgment for the applicant. 8.  On 6 February 2002 the respondents lodged an appeal with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu). However, since it was established that one of the respondents had died in May 2004, the case was returned to the Municipal Court which, after the inheritance proceedings had been completed in February 2006, stayed the proceedings on 28 June 2006. 9.  Meanwhile, on 12 January 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings. 10.  After the Municipal Court established that the inheritance proceedings after the respondent who had died had ended with a final decision on 24 February 2006, the court invited his son to take over the proceedings and on 27 November 2006 again sent the case-file to the Split County Court to decide on the appeal by the respondents. 11.  On 1 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 12,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Split County Court to give a decision in the applicant's case in the shortest time possible but no longer than ten months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 13 April 2007. The Constitutional Court found that the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the inefficiency of the Municipal Court. 12.  On 19 December 2008 the Split County Court dismissed the appeal by the respondents and upheld the first-instance judgment of 22 November 2001.