6. On 17 January 1997 the Skopje Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), determined the amount of the applicant's pension. 7. On 30 January 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Fund's Appeal Commission (Комисија за жалби при Фондот за пензиско и инвалидско осигурување на Македонија) on the ground that his pension entitlement had been incorrectly calculated. 8. On 5 June 1997 the Fund's Appeal Commission dismissed his appeal. 9. On 1 October 1997 the Supreme Court set aside the Fund's decision and remitted the case to the Appeal Commission, pointing out that the administrative body had incorrectly interpreted and applied the national law. 10. On 6 March 1998 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that Article 36 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Закон за пензиското и инвалидското осигурување) (“the Act”) imposed a general ceiling on the amount of pension awards, which determined and had an effect on the highest pension award payable to the applicant. 11. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld his claim and declared the Commission's decision null and void. It held that the applicant's pension had not been calculated correctly and gave instructions as to how the applicant's pension was to be calculated in accordance with the Act. 12. The Commission took no action further to that judgment despite a submission by the applicant of 2 December 1999 that it should not remain silent. 13. On 15 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court, requesting it to render a judgment in the absence of an administrative decision concerning the amount of his pension. On 23 February 2000 he repeated his request before the court. 14. On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request on the ground that in the meantime, on 10 May 2000, the Commission had rendered a decision concerning his claim and no judgment instead could have been taken. 15. On 7 June 2000 the applicant challenged the Commission's decision before the Supreme Court as it had again erred in law and had apparently disregarded the court's legal reasoning and instructions given in its judgment of 6 October 1998. 16. On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's complaint and declared the Commission's decision null and void. It repeated its previous findings about wrong application of the law and instructed the Commission to take into consideration its instructions in the subsequent decision-making. 17. On 30 August 2002 the Commission rendered a decision which was not in line with the instructions given by the Supreme Court. 18. On 30 September 2002, the applicant instituted, for the third time, administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court on the same grounds as before. 19. On 16 April 2003 the Fund and the applicant concluded a court settlement about the amount of the pension. It was concluded that the amount agreed would be retroactively paid to the applicant from the day when he met the criteria for age-retirement and that the difference between the amount actually paid and the amount agreed would be paid by the Fund in two instalments.