5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Leskovac, Serbia. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 6 December 1988 the applicant, a labour inspector (inspektor rada), was declared redundant by the Municipality of Leskovac, which decision entered into force on 29 December 1990. 8.  On 22 February 1991 the applicant therefore filed a claim with the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Vranje, seeking reinstatement or severance pay as provided for in the relevant domestic legislation. 9.  Following a remittal, on 3 September 1991 this court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Leskovac. 10.  Between 2 June 1992 and 5 January 1998 a total of fourteen separate decisions were adopted by the Municipal Court, at first instance, the District Court (Okružni sud) in Leskovac, on appeal, and the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) at third instance. 11.  Following a remittal, on 16 March 1998 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant. 12.  On 5 June 1998 the District Court upheld this judgment on appeal and it thereby became final. 13.  On 18 March 1999 the Municipal Court issued a separate decision, ordering the enforcement of this judgment. 14.  On 21 November 2000, however, the same court accepted the respondent’s request for the re-opening of the labour dispute. 15.  On 21 February 2001 and 23 May 2002 the District Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision. 16.  On 21 November 2002 the Municipal Court therefore re-opened the proceedings in question. 17.  The hearing scheduled for 21 April 2004 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness. 18.  On 3 March 2005 the President of the Municipal Court appointed another presiding judge to deal with the case, the reason being that the applicant had, in the meantime, filed a criminal complaint against the former. 19.  On 18 April 2005 and 18 May 2005 two separate hearing were held. 20.  On 24 May 2005 the Municipal Court appointed a financial expert and ordered him to calculate the amount of salary arrears sought by the applicant. 21.  On 5 April 2006 the Municipal Court appointed another financial expert to carry out this order. 22.  On 19 July 2006 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant. It awarded him most of the salary arrears and severance pay requested, but refused his claim for reinstatement since he had reached retirement age in the meantime. 23.  On 1 December 2006 the District Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. 24.  On 24 January 2007 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant. 25.  On 26 April 2007, however, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims in their entirety. 26.  On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Supreme Court. 27.  It would appear that throughout the above proceedings the applicant had represented himself.