4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Gorno Lakocerej. 5.  On an unspecified date in 1991, the applicant, as a successful litigant, instituted enforcement proceedings against the Croatian company “Fruktus”, (“the debtor”), for payment of a debt. 6.  On 6 June 1991 the then Ohrid Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) upheld the applicant's request ordering the debtor to transfer the amount due on his account (“the 1991 order”). 7.  On 20 June 1991 the Zagreb Payment Exchange Bureau (Служба за општествено книговодство Загреб) (“the Bureau”) transferred part of the debt on the applicant's account. 8.  On 4 February 1992 the applicant requested the court to enforce the remainder. On 19 February 1992 the first-instance court granted this request. 9. On 9 November 1992 it rejected as out of time the debtor's objection on the 1991 order. On 19 March 1993 the Bitola District Court dismissed an appeal of the debtor against this latter decision rejecting its argument that normal communication had been disrupted because of the war conflict in Croatia at the material time. 10.  On 20 September 1993 the first-instance court unsuccessfully requested the applicant to propose an alternative means of enforcement. On 8 November 1994 it stayed the proceedings finding that the enforcement of the remainder, by the means proposed by the applicant, had become impossible due to the dissolution of the then Federal Bureau of Yugoslavia and the creation of the Bureau, as an autonomous institution of the independent Croatia. 11.  On 11 July 1995 the Bitola District Court upheld the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the dissolution of the then Federal Bureau of Yugoslavia could not be regarded as a valid ground for suspending the enforcement. It ordered the lower court to contact the Ministry of Justice so as to establish whether an inter-state agreement existed between the respondent State and Croatia concerning the payment exchange operations. No further decision has been taken. 12.  On 31 August 2001 the case-file was destroyed. According to the Government, all case-files involving a foreign debtor were destroyed on the basis of an internal act of competent courts. There is no evidence that that was brought to the applicant's attention. The queries which he made at an unspecified date in 2003 revealed that the case had been archived.