5.   The applicant was a former employee of LETEKS (u stečaju), a company based in Leskovac (hereinafter “the debtor”). Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations toward him, the applicant instituted three sets of civil proceedings against it. 6.  On 20 April 2001 the Leskovac Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant:
(i) holiday pay for 1998 in the amount of 700 Serbian dinars (RSD), plus interest; and
(ii) RSD 1,490 for his legal costs, plus interest. 7.  On 14 May 2001 the judgment became final. 8.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the above judgment. 9.  On 29 August 2002 the Leskovac Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 10.  On 25 February 2004 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring. 11.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant requested the Leskovac Municipal Court to continue with the enforcement. 12.  On 11 March 2011 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because insolvency proceedings had been opened in respect of the debtor. 13.  On 19 June 2003 the Leskovac Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(i) salary arrears for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, plus interest; and
(ii) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the following periods: 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1992, 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1996, and 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2002. 14.  On 20 July 2003 the judgment became final. 15.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant sought enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out by means of an auction of the debtor’s movable assets. 16.  On 25 October 2006 the Leskovac Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 17.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant filed a further request for enforcement of the judgment, this time proposing that it be carried out by means of an auction of the debtor’s specific immovable assets. 18.  The Leskovac Municipal Court never ruled on the applicant’s request of 17 March 2008, but instead on 23 June of that year suspended the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had failed to pay a deposit of RSD 640 on account of the enforcement costs. 19.  On 14 March 2007 the Leskovac Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him;
(i) salary arrears for 1 January 2003 to 11 October 2005, plus interest; and
(ii) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 January 2005 to 11 October 2005. 20.  On 19 April 2007 the judgment became final. 21.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment. 22.  On 12 October 2009 the Leskovac Municipal Court eventually accepted the applicant’s request and ordered the enforcement of his pecuniary claims. The enforcement proceedings relating to payment of the social security contributions were suspended. In its decision, the court awarded the applicant a fixed sum in respect of enforcement costs. 23.  The applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Leskovac High Court. 24.  On 7 April 2011 the Leskovac High Court returned the file to the first-instance court, ordering it to stay the enforcement proceedings because insolvency proceedings had been opened in respect of the debtor. 25.  On 16 April 2010 preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor were initiated before the Leskovac Commercial Court. 26.  On 13 July 2010 the court issued an interim measure and prohibited any enforcement action being taken against the debtor. 27.  On 25 January 2011 it opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. 28.  In May 2011 the applicant duly registered a claim for the sums specified in the judgments of 20 April 2001, 19 June 2003 and 14 March 2007. 29.  On 6 December 2011 the applicant’s claims based on the above judgments were recognised in the total amount of RSD 864,838.93. 30.  On 14 September 2012 some of the debtor’s property was sold. 31.  As at the date of this judgment, the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were still ongoing. 32.  On 5 December 2006 the debtor was privatised. 33.  On 8 April 2008 the contract for the sale of the debtor was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations. 34.  From June 2008 the debtor was comprised of predominantly State‑owned capital. 35.  On 31 October 2010, the applicant lodged a joint constitutional appeal with other former employees of the debtor. 36. As at the date of this judgment, the case was still pending before the Constitutional Court.