6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sombor, Serbia. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  On 24 February 2005 the applicant bought a store together with a plot of land from the P Company (plot A). 9.  As the owner of the above real estate, as well as of plots B and C, the P Company was burdened with a landed servitude (lični realni teret) in favour of third persons, requiring their life-long maintenance (doživotno izdržavanje). 10.  On the basis of the above contract, however, the servitude in question, being tied, inter alia, to plot A, was partly transferred to the applicant as its new owner. 11.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant and the P Company concluded a court-certified amendment to the contract of 24 February 2005. The P Company thereby accepted to reimburse the applicant for any payments made in connection with the said servitude. This entitlement was itself constituted as a separate landed servitude (easement, stvarni realni teret) tied to plots B and C and established in favour of the applicant as the current owner of plot A, as well as any future owners thereof. 12.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant filed a request with the Municipal Cadastre Office (Služba za katastar nepokretnosti) in Sombor, seeking registration of his easement. 13.  On 11 April 2005 the Municipal Cadastre Office rejected the applicant’s request, stating that the registration sought could not be granted in view of the relevant domestic law. 14.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant appealed against this decision. 15.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant supplemented his appeal with an expert opinion provided by a well-known domestic legal expert, according to whom the applicant’s entitlement of 30 March 2005 was an easement and, as such, had had to be registered by the Municipal Cadastre Office. The expert, retained by the applicant, further noted that the rights of the third persons in question remained unaffected, thus implying that their consent was not needed. 16.  On 29 May 2006 the legal branch of the Department of Geodesy (Republički geodetski zavod - sector za pravne poslove) confirmed the impugned decision of the Municipal Cadastre Office. It stated that the applicant had not offered any proof that the third persons in question had agreed to the arrangement reached on 24 February 2005 and 30 March 2005. It also noted that no judicial review by means of an administrative dispute was possible. 17.  Both the Municipal Cadastre Office and the Department of Geodesy are administrative authorities and, as such, part of the respondent State’s executive branch of government.