4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Zagreb in which lived S.V. under a specially protected tenancy arrangement. S.V.'s wife, M.V., as well as three other persons, A, B and C, were part of the household and their legal position in respect of the flat depended on S.V.'s position. 6.  On 22 October 1996, the Lease Act (Zakon o najmu stanova), was enacted. It abolishes the specially protected tenancies and regulates the conditions of leasing privately-owned flats, including those previously let under the specially protected tenancy arrangements. 7.  On 9 June 1997 the applicant filed a civil action against S.V. and his household with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) challenging the defendants' right to a protected rent as stipulated by the Lease Act. At the same time the applicant filed a separate action against the defendants seeking their eviction from the flat. S.V. died in September 1997 but the above proceedings continued, now with M.V. being the person benefiting from the protected rent arrangement. 8.  On 12 November 1997 the Municipal Court decided to join the two civil suits. 9.  A hearing was held on 14 May 1998 following which judgment was pronounced dismissing the applicant's claims. The judgment was served on him on 27 November 1998. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 2 December 1998. 10.  On 12 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) pronounced judgment in the case. The Court rejected, as did the Municipal Court, the applicant's claim for eviction of the defendants. As regards the applicant's challenge to the defendants' right to a protected rent the County Court quashed the judgment of the Municipal Court and remitted the case to that court for a new examination. 11.  To the extent the County Court had rejected his claim for the eviction of the defendants from his flat, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). On 13 October 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint. 12.  In the meantime the Municipal Court resumed its examination of the remaining part of the civil suit, i.e. the question of the defendants' right to a protected rent. On 9 November 2001 the court performed an on the spot inquiry and an expert opinion was obtained on 19 November 2001. A hearing was held on 25 September 2002 whereas two subsequent hearings scheduled for 20 February 2003 and 4 February 2004 were cancelled. 13.  On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of a civil suit instituted by M.V. before the same court concerning the conclusion of a lease agreement between her and the applicant (see below). The applicant appealed against this decision. On 9 November 2004 the Zagreb County Court rejected the appeal in so far as it concerned M.V. but quashed the decision to adjourn the proceedings in so far as it concerned A, B and C. 14.  By judgment of 30 September 2005 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant's claims for an increased rent in regard of A, B and C as these defendants were not tenants but only members of the tenant's, M.V.'s, household. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Zagreb County Court. It appears that the proceedings are at present pending. 15.  It appears that the proceedings concerning M.V. which were adjourned by the Municipal Court on 24 February 2004, are still pending before that court. 16.  As regards the length of the above proceedings the applicant lodged, on 2 March 2004, a complaint with the Constitutional Court. On 9 November 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint in respect of the length of proceedings as manifestly ill-founded. It does not appear that the applicant has subsequently addressed himself to the Constitutional Court regarding the length of the proceedings before the Municipal Court and the County Court. 17.  As indicated above (§ 13) M.V. instituted proceedings, on 23 October 1998, against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court in order to obtain the conclusion of a lease agreement. As this dispute apparently remained unresolved the applicant lodged, on 2 March 2004, a complaint with the Constitutional Court in respect of the length of the proceedings. 18.  On 9 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's right to have the dispute determined within a reasonable time was breached and awarded him just satisfaction in the amount of 6,500 Croatian Kunas. Furthermore, it ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to adopt a judgment within six months from the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. 19.  In compliance with the above the Municipal Court pronounced judgment on 6 December 2005. M.V. appealed against this judgment to the Zagreb County Court where the case is at present pending. 20.  The relevant part of section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske –Official Gazette no. 49/2002 of 3 May 2002; “the Constitutional Court Act”) reads as follows:
 “(1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...
 (2) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph 1 of this Section is accepted, the Constitutional Court shall determine a time-limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits...
 (3) In a decision under paragraph 2 of this Article, the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the State budget within a term of three months from the date when the party lodged a request