4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Split. 5.  On 1 January 1997 the Act on Restitution of and Compensation for Property Taken during the Yugoslav Communist Regime (“the Denationalisation Act”) entered into force. 6.  Pursuant to section 22 of the Denationalisation Act, nationalised flats in respect of which third persons had acquired specially protected tenancies (stanarsko pravo), were not to be restored to their former owners. The tenants had a right to purchase the flats from the Fund for the Restitution of and Compensation for Property Taken (Fond za naknadu oduzete imovine) under favourable conditions set out in the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act. At the same time, the former owners or their heirs had the right to financial compensation in respect of the flats. Exceptionally, the former owners or their heirs had a right to restitution in kind of their nationalised flats in respect of which no “tenancy relationship” (stanarski odnos) existed. 7.  In 1958 a flat in Split owned by the applicant's grandmother was nationalised by the Communist authorities. Subsequently, it was given to a certain D.P. who acquired a specially protected tenancy of the flat. When D.P. died in July 1996 the tenancy was transferred to his wife A.P. She died in October 1996. 8.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Office for Property Affairs of the Split-Dalmatia County (Županija Splitsko - Dalmatinska, Gradski ured za imovinskopravne poslove, “the Office”) seeking restitution in kind of the abovementioned flat. He relied on the Denationalisation Act. 9.  Since the Office did not give a decision within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 6 April 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond (see paragraph 30 below) with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”). 10.  As no decision on his appeal of 6 April 1998 had been given within the statutory time-limit of two months, the applicant first filed a rush note with the Ministry on 9 June 1998. On 10 July 1998 he brought an action for failure to respond (see paragraph 31 below) against the Ministry in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). 11.  On 17 September 1998 the Office decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of concurring administrative and civil proceedings (see below under 2.). On 23 March 1999 the applicant extended his initial appeal of 6 April 1998 to the Ministry to include the decision on the stay of proceedings. Since no decision was given on that appeal either, on 21 June 1999 the applicant filed a rush note with the Ministry and then, on 7 July 1999, extended his initial action for failure to respond (that was pending before the Administrative Court) to include the Ministry's failure to decide on his extended appeal. 12.  On 28 June 2000 the Administrative Court gave judgment for the applicant and ordered the Ministry to decide, within sixty days, on his appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings. 13.  Since the Ministry did not do so, on 13 September 2001 the applicant applied to the Administrative Court, requesting it to give its own decision on his appeal, which would entirely substitute for the decision of the Ministry. 14.  On 27 February 2002 the Administrative Court, sitting as a court of full jurisdiction, delivered a decision dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings. The court held that the principal issue in concurring administrative and civil proceedings was the existence of the tenancy relationship on the flat. Since that issue was decisive for the question whether the applicant was entitled to restitution in kind or compensation, it was justified to stay the proceedings. 15.  On 15 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) alleging a violation of his constitutional right to property. On 10 December 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible as premature because the impugned decision did not concern the merits of the case. 16.  On 25 July 2005 the Office for Property Affairs decided to resume the administrative proceedings. 17.  At the hearing held on 6 September 2005 the Office requested the relevant local authorities to provide the documentation necessary to calculate the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant for the flat in question. 18.  After the receipt of the aforementioned documentation, the Office held another hearing on 1 September 2006 at which the applicant requested to be granted a time-limit for further submissions and presentation of some additional evidence. The Office granted the request and also invited the applicant to provide some further documentation. The Government submitted that the applicant has so far not complied with that request. 19.  The proceedings are still pending before the Office as the first-instance administrative authority. 20.  Meanwhile, on 7 January 1997 N.K., the daughter of D.P. and A.P. (see paragraph 7 above) applied to the Commission for Housing Affairs of the Split-Dalmatia County (Županija Splitsko - Dalmatinska, Komisija za stambene poslove) to be recognised as holder of a specially protected tenancy of the abovementioned flat. On 17 January 1997 the Commission declared her request inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. 21.  On 24 February 1997 the competent Ministry dismissed her appeal. N.K. then brought an administrative action in the Administrative Court challenging that decision. 22.  On 17 February 1999 the Administrative Court quashed the administrative authorities' decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance authority. 23.  In the resumed proceedings, on 2 December 2002 the Commission for Housing Affairs again dismissed N.K.'s request for lack of jurisdiction. On 24 July 2003 the Ministry dismissed her appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. As N.K. did not bring an action in the Administrative Court, the decisions of the administrative authorities became final.
(b)  Civil proceedings 24.  On 2 February 1997 the Town of Split (“the local authorities”) brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against N.K. seeking her eviction. Soon afterwards, N.K. filed a counter-claim seeking the conclusion of a lease contract under so-called protected rent (zaštićena najamnina) in respect of the flat. It appears that at some point the applicant joined those proceedings as an intervener (umješač) on the side of the local authorities. 25.  On 10 June 2003 the Split Municipal Court dismissed the claim of the local authorities while accepting that of N.K. The court found that she had ex lege acquired a specially protected tenancy of the flat after the death of her mother A.P., and that she was therefore entitled to conclude a lease contract under the protected rent with the plaintiff. The applicant appealed as intervener. 26.  On 21 May 2004 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment which thereby became final. 27.  Relying on the courts' findings that she had ex lege acquired a specially protected tenancy of the flat, on 15 December 2004 N.K. concluded, instead of a lease contract with the local authorities, a sale contract with the Fund for the Restitution of and Compensation for Property Taken (see paragraph 6 above) by which she bought the flat in question. Shortly afterwards she recorded her ownership of the flat in the land register.