4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Strelci. 5.  He worked in a mine “Tajmiste” which was affiliated with the then socially-owned enterprise (општествено претпријатие) Rudnici i Železarnica Skopje (“the employer”). In 1987 the applicant was seriously injured in an accident. Following that incident, he unsuccessfully requested a disability pension. 6. On 1 June 1992 the applicant submitted a request to the employer for the termination of the employment. On 4 June 1992 the employer granted his request and adopted a dismissal decision. The dismissal became effective as of 15 June 1992. On 2 November 1992 the applicant requested the employer to reinstate him. 7. On 23 November 1992 the applicant brought a civil action for annulment of the dismissal against the employer. He also claimed reinstatement. 8. On 23 December 1992 the then Kičevo Municipal Court (Општински суд) upheld the applicant's claim. On 21 April 1993 the then Skopje District Court (Окружен суд) quashed the decision and instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had complied with the time-limit for the submission of his claim. 9. At a hearing of 4 June 1993, the trial court examined three witnesses proposed by the applicant. On 23 December 1993 the composition of the panel of judges changed. As the trial restarted, the court re-examined the witnesses. 10. On 30 June 1993 the Kičevo Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's claim as ill-founded. On 24 November 1993 the Skopje District Court set aside that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It further instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had objected to the dismissal decision before the executive board of the employer (“the executive board”) and whether he had complied with the statutory time-limit to institute court proceedings. 11. At a hearing of 28 February 1994 the composition of the panel of judges changed again. 12. On the same date, the Kičevo Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim. On 18 May 1994 the District Court upheld the employer's appeal and overturned the decision rejecting the applicant's claim as time barred. On 27 June 1995 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and referred the case back to the District Court. On 7 December 1995 the latter set aside the first instance decision to determine whether the applicant had been served with the dismissal decision. 13. On 4 March 1996 the trial court rejected as inadmissible the applicant's claim as he had failed to object to the dismissal decision before the executive board. On 10 September 1996 the Bitola Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд) quashed that decision as it remained undetermined whether the dismissal decision had been served on the applicant. 14. On 25 November 1996 the Kičevo Court of First Instance (Основен суд) upheld the applicant's claim and annulled the dismissal decision. It found that the applicant had not been served with the dismissal decision. On 19 May 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the employer's appeal, quashed the decision and ordered a retrial. 15. The trial court adjourned a hearing fixed for 25 September 1997 because of the witnesses' absence. At a hearing of 3 November 1997, the trial court heard in evidence the witnesses proposed by the applicant. On the same date, the court rejected the applicant's claim as inadmissible. The decision was repealed by the appellate court on 30 January 1998. 16. The trial court adjourned a hearing fixed for 18 May 1998 because of the employer's absence. On 3 June 1998 it allowed the applicant's request to order the employer to submit his employment file. 17. On 12 June 1998 the first-instance court partially upheld the applicant's claim and annulled the dismissal decision. It found that the latter had not been served on the applicant nor had he received in this respect any other notification. On 8 October 1998 the appellate court upheld the parties' appeals and quashed the decision. 18. The court postponed a hearing fixed for 24 November 1998 as the applicant had not been properly summoned. 19. A hearing of 24 December 1998 was adjourned at the employer's request. 20. On 11 January 1999 the first-instance court upheld the applicant's claim and annulled the dismissal decision. It further ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to a post equal to his qualifications. On 22 June 1999 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the employer's appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. 21. As indicated by the Government, on 31 August 1999 the applicant submitted to the trial court his concluding remarks in writing. The court adjourned a hearing of 2 September 1999 to communicate to the applicant real evidence that had been meanwhile submitted by the employer. 22. On 20 September 1999 the first-instance court upheld the applicant's claim. It annulled the dismissal decision and ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant. On 21 December 1999 the appellate court upheld the employer's appeal and set aside that decision. 23. Hearings of 6 April and 14 July 2000 were adjourned because the employer was not properly summoned. On 18 May 2000 the President of the Court of First Instance granted the employer's request for removal of the trial judge from the case. A hearing of 15 September 2000 was postponed at the applicant's request. At a hearing of 23 October 2000 the court examined two witnesses proposed by the applicant; read out other evidence; and heard the applicant. Following the concluding remarks, the court gave its decision dismissing the applicant's claim. It established that he had been served with the dismissal decision between 4 and 10 June 1992 and that he had failed to object to it before the executive board. It further found that his subsequent request for reinstatement could not have been considered as an objection nor had it been lodged in time. It concluded that the applicant had been dismissed on his request; that he had not come to work after 15 June 1992 and that he had received the discharge annuity (отпремнина). 24. On 7 June 2001 the appellate court dismissed the applicant's appeal finding no grounds to depart from the reasons given by the lower court. 25. On 20 March 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law (ревизија) as ill-founded.