4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Amasya. 5.  On 9 June 1993 the applicant began working as a watchman at the Belevi Municipality, attached to the Taşova District in the province of Amasya. Under Turkish law, his employment status was that of a civil servant. On 8 June 1995, relying on three appraisal reports drafted in the past two years, the Municipality terminated the applicant’s employment contract. 6.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant initiated proceedings against the Municipality in the Samsun Administrative Court and contested the termination of his contract. Furthermore, he requested to be awarded his monthly salary, which was 7,630,000 Turkish Liras (TRL)[1], together with the interest, for the period during which he was unemployed. 7.  On 27 November 1996 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s request. He appealed and requested the suspension of the enforcement of the decision. 8.  By an interim decision of 27 August 1997, the Supreme Administrative Court suspended the enforcement of the administrative court’s decision of 27 November 1996, as well as the Municipality’s decision to dismiss the applicant. The applicant resumed his work at the Municipality. 9.  On 3 February 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Municipality had in fact dismissed several employees following the election of a new mayor. It was established that the Municipality had been relying on identical and stereotyped appraisal reports, which did not sufficiently reflect the reasons for their dismissal. Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Samsun Administrative Court. 10.  On 31 May 2000 the Samsun Administrative Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court and annulled the decision of the Municipality. The court further ordered that the applicant be reinstated in his job and that his monthly salary and related pecuniary rights be paid to him for the period during which he had been entitled to perform his duties. 11.  On 13 December 2001 the Council of State rejected the appeal filed by the Municipality. This judgment was served on the applicant on 3 April 2002. 12.  To date, the Municipality has not made any payment to the applicant.