4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Ularci. 5.  On 31 July 1996 the applicant was dismissed for failing to prevent water flood of the employer’s premises. On 14 August 1996 the dismissal decision was upheld by the employer’s executive board. 6.  On 5 September 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against the employer requesting annulment of his dismissal and his reinstatement. 7.  The first-instance court postponed hearings listed on 17 December 1997, 27 January, 18 February, 13 April and 20 April 1998 due to the absence of the employer and witnesses. 8.  On 18 June 1998 the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim. It would appear that this decision was served on the applicant in December 2000, given that his appeal of 26 December 2000 was accepted as being submitted within the statutory fifteen-day time-limit. On 9 May 2001 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case for a renewed examination. 9.  After two on-site expert examinations and five adjournments, none of which was ordered on the applicant’s request, on 25 June 2003 the first-instance court annulled the dismissal decision. 10.  On 24 March 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed that decision since liquidation proceedings were launched in respect to the employer. 11.  On 1 November 2004 the first-instance court terminated the proceedings. The applicant was advised to seek recognition of his claim in the liquidation proceedings. 12.  No further decisions were taken in these proceedings. 13.  On 20 July 2004 the applicant claimed (пријава за побарување) compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the alleged unlawful dismissal. In support, he referred to the first- and second-instance courts’ decisions of 25 June 2003 and 24 March 2004. 14.  On 7 September 2004 the first-instance court recognised the applicant’s claim as having been established by a court decision. 15.  On 23 November 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld an appeal of the employer’s receiver and quashed the lower court’s decision. It held that the applicant’s claim had not been established by any final decision nor had his application been based on any such decision. It further requested that fresh opinion be obtained from the receiver. 16.  On 11 February 2009 the first-instance court did not recognise the applicant’s claim and advised him to seek its determination in civil proceedings.