4.  On an unspecified date in 1995, the applicant instituted civil proceedings for debt against Mr N. and a company run and owned by the latter (“the company”). He claimed that he had bought a vehicle (“the vehicle”) for 54,000 German marks (“DM”) for the benefit of the company and that, in return, he had received from Mr N. another vehicle and DM 10,000. The remaining balance was DM 24,000. 5. On 26 September 1995 the then Bitola Municipal Court (Општински суд Битола) (“the first-instance court”) issued an injunction preventing Mr N. from selling the vehicle. 6. On 27 November 1995 the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and ordered Mr N. and the company (“the debtors”) jointly to pay him DM 24,000 together with interest (домицилна камата). In addition, it ordered the debtors to pay the applicant’s costs. On 28 February 1996 the then Bitola District Court (Окружен суд Битола) confirmed that decision. It also declared it final in respect of Mr N. as he had not challenged it. 7. On 25 September 1997 the Supreme Court upheld an appeal by the applicant on points of law (ревизија) and quashed the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the company only. It held that they had not decided the applicant’s claim as submitted, in that they had ignored his request to have his claim converted into the national currency. 8. On 29 April 2004 the first-instance court upheld the applicant’s claim and ordered the debtors (Mr N. and the company) jointly to pay the applicant 636,384.00 Macedonian denars (equivalent to DM 24,000) together with default interest (затезна камата) calculated as of 11 August 1995. On 13 September 2004 that court ordered the debtors to reimburse the trial costs incurred by the applicant. On 4 November 2004 those decisions became final.
(b) Enforcement proceedings 9. On 1 April 1996 the first-instance court granted the applicant’s request for enforcement of the decision of 27 November 1995. The debt was to be honoured by an inventory and public sale of Mr N.’s property or by its transfer from the company’s bank account. On 13 May 1996 that court refused the company’s objection and declared the order against Mr N. final as he had not challenged it. That decision was confirmed by the then Bitola District Court’s decision of 10 June 1996. 10. On 17 June 1996 the first-instance court ordered the then Payment Exchange Office (Завод за платен промет) to enforce its order by transferring the amount due from the company’s account to the applicant’s. On 2 July 1996 the first-instance court ordered enforcement of the applicant’s claim by means of an inventory and public sale of the debtors’ movable property, including the vehicle. That decision was set aside by the Bitola Court of Appeal on 24 October 1996. 11. After establishing that there were insufficient funds in the company’s account, on 26 December 1996 the first-instance court ordered continuation of the enforcement proceedings. A public sale of the vehicle was fixed for 24 March 1997. On 25 March 1997 a third party challenged that decision since it had obtained possession of the vehicle on the basis of a sales contract concluded with the company. 12. On 14 April 1997 the first-instance court granted the applicant an enforcement title over the vehicle and ordered the third party to transfer the vehicle into the applicant’s possession. On 3 June 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by the debtors and the third party and confirmed the above decision. 13. On 18 December 1997 the first-instance court authorised the third party to register the disputed vehicle in his possession, but ordered him not to sell it before the final conclusion of the enforcement proceedings. It established that Mr N. had meanwhile deposited about DM 13,000 in various currencies to secure the applicant’s claim. 14. On 23 January 1998 Mr N. left the respondent State. 15. On 27 January 1998 the first-instance court ordered its treasurer to transfer to the applicant the funds deposited by Mr N. 16. On 11 March 1998 the first-instance court requested the police to confiscate the disputed vehicle from the third party. The police replied that the third party had obtained ownership of the vehicle on the basis of a sales contract certified by the Štip Court of First Instance and that accordingly, the latter court should proceed with the enforcement. 17. On 27 April 1998 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that the enforcement of his claim had been delayed as the whereabouts of Mr N. were unknown. On 9 September 1998 that court stated that the delay had been caused by the police’s failure to enforce the order. On 12 November 1998 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that the case had been transferred to the Štip Court of First Instance, as competent ratione loci, to proceed with the enforcement. 18. On 17 June 1998 Mr N. was convicted of fraud and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for selling the vehicle to the third party despite the court’s order (see paragraph 5 above) not to do so. 19.  On 2 June 1999 the first-instance court informed the applicant that as of 16 February 1999 the enforcement proceedings had been transferred to the Štip Court of First Instance. It also referred to the deposit which had been made available to him. 20. On 15 June 1999 the funds deposited with the first-instance court (see paragraph 13 above) were handed to the applicant, as evidenced by a payment slip of that date. 21. On 15 November 2004 the applicant requested enforcement of the first-instance court’s decisions of 29 April and 13 September 2004 (see paragraph 9 above). In that submission, he also referred to the enforcement proceedings of 1996 pending between the same parties in relation to the same subject-matter. 22. On 16 January 2006 the first-instance court requested information from the Štip Court of First Instance regarding measures taken with a view to enforcing the applicant’s claim. No further action was taken in respect of the enforcement proceedings. 23.  In the course of these proceedings, the applicant requested various institutions, on many occasions, to expedite the enforcement proceedings concerning his claim.