4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rijeka, Croatia. 5.  On 3 August 1994 he obtained a final and enforceable judgment from the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) ordering a private individual, M.Č. to pay the applicant a sum of money. 6.  On 11 November 1994, as no payment had been made, the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings in the Makarska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Makarskoj), seeking the enforcement of the above judgment through the seizure of movable property owned by M.Č in Makarska. 7.  In February 1998, the Makarska Municipal Court initiated the seizure of the said movable property in order to satisfy the applicant's claim. However, this attempt failed because of the lack of movable property suitable for seizure. 8.  On 26 November 2001 the applicant requested that the value of a flat owned by M.Č. be assessed by the Makarska Municipal Court for the purposes of the enforcement proceedings. 9.  On 21 July 2003 the applicant sought enforcement through the seizure of the above-mentioned flat. 10.  On 3 July 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Split County Court, complaining about the length of the above-mentioned enforcement proceedings. 11.  On 1 March 2007 the Split County Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him compensation in the amount of 7,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) and ordered the Makarska Municipal Court to decide the case as quickly as possible but in any case within six months. The County Court's decision was served on the applicant on 23 March 2007. 12.  On 2 October 2007 the applicant lodged another request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Split County Court, complaining that the enforcement proceedings were still pending at first instance. On 10 March 2008 the Split County Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. 13.  On 2 April 2008 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of the Split County Court, contesting it as being ineffective in his case and claiming compensation in the amount of HRK 500,000. 14.  On 9 June 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's appeal in part and ordered the Makarska Municipal Court to complete the enforcement proceedings as quickly as possible but in any case within six months. The Supreme Court did not award the applicant any further compensation. The Supreme Court's decision was served on the applicant on 3 July 2008. 15.  On 5 September 2008 the Makarska Municipal Court decided that the enforcement was not permissible under the relevant domestic law. The applicant appealed. On 15 January 2009 the Split County Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Makarska Municipal Court. 16.  On 23 January 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the above-mentioned enforcement proceedings and also complained about the fact that both time-limits, the first one ordered by the Split County Court and the second by the Supreme Court, had not been complied with. 17.  On 19 February 2009 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint, treating it as an appeal against the Supreme Court's decision of 9 June 2008, on the ground that the findings of the lower courts had been correct. 18.  On 6 April 2009 the Makarska Municipal Court decided again that the enforcement on the flat in question was not permissible. The applicant appealed and the case is still pending before the Split County Court.