5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Limbuš. 6.  On 6 June 1994 the applicant instituted execution proceedings in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota v Mariboru) against Obrtna zadruga Trgokooperant Maribor (“OZTN”) seeking payment of unpaid salaries as determined by court judgments of 31 March 1993 and 27 January 1994.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
On 12 September 1994 the court allowed the execution.
On 16 September 1994 OZTN opposed the execution order and on 21 October 1994 requested that the execution be adjourned.
On 1 January 1995 the Maribor Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
On 19 May 1995 the applicant partially withdrew his action for enforcement because OZTN had paid its debt in part. At the same time he sought payment of additional unpaid salaries.
On 25 August 1995 OZTN amended its objection.
The court scheduled a hearing for 21 October 1997, but OZTN and its legal representative failed to appear before the court. Therefore, the court adjourned the hearing until 4 November 1997. This hearing was held and then adjourned to give the parties the opportunity to settle the case outside the court.
The court held a new hearing on 4 December 1997 which was adjourned until 27 January 1998 because OZTN failed to attend. On the latter date the heading was cancelled. It was adjourned sine die because the judge presiding over the case was absent.
On 11 February 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 22 December 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a financial expert to determine the amount due. The court also made an enquiry with the tax authorities.
On 19 January 1998 the applicant informed the court that he had paid the advance on costs and expenses of the expert. On 10 March and 19 July 1999 he urged the court to appoint the expert as decided on 22 December 1998.
On 31 August 1999 the applicant lodged a request for an injunction to prevent OZTN to sell its property, which was rejected on 9 November 1999.
On 28 September 1999 the court held a hearing. OZTN explained that it had not paid its share of the advance on costs and expenses of the expert because it hoped that an out-of-court settlement would be reached in the case.
On 13 October 1999 OZTN submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement.
On 11 November 1999 the applicant, upon retaining a new representative, rejected OZTN's offer.
On 22 November 1999 OZTN informed the court that it had paid the advance on costs and expenses of the expert.
On 9 March 2000 the court appointed a financial expert. Initially, she informed the court that she could not take over the production of an expert opinion due to too much work, but she subsequently submitted an expert opinion in this case. On 23 January 2001 the opinion was served on the applicant.
In the meanwhile, on 20 January 2000, the applicant requested the court to speed up the proceedings.
On 17 May 2001 the case was transferred to a new judge for an unknown reason.
On 16 August 2001 the applicant informed the court that he had no objections to the expert opinion and requested the court to decide the case.
On 28 November 2001 and again on 28 March 2003 OZTN requested the court to refer the applicant to institute contentious proceedings in order to establish his claim. On 10 September 2002 it requested the court to decide the case and the following day lodged a request for supervision.
On 13 September 2002 the court established that the applicant's motion for enforcement was not in order and requested the applicant to amend it accordingly.
On 26 September 2002 the applicant amended his motion.
On 7 April 2003 the court sought some evidence from the Employment Office of the Republic of Slovenia and received it on 16 April 2003.
On 5 May 2003 the case was transferred to a new judge for an unknown reason.
On 9 May 2003 the applicant applied for leave to amend the order sought. He asked the court to allow the enforcement by way of selling the defendant's real estate. He also requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 15 March 2004 the court requested the applicant to amend his appeal for leave as required by the law.
On 17 March 2004 the applicant lodged a request for supervision with the aim of speeding up of the proceedings, but to no avail.
On 22 March 2004 the court terminated the enforcement proceedings in part because the applicant had partially withdrawn his action for enforcement on 19 May 1995. The court also referred OZTN to institute proceedings within thirty days in order to establish the inadmissibility of the enforcement. 7.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru) against the decision of referral.
On 5 November 2004 the court dismissed the appeal. 8.  On 20 April 2004 OZTN instituted contentious proceedings against the applicant in order to establish the inadmissibility of the enforcement. 9.   In the meanwhile, on 6 April 2004 the Maribor Local Court allowed the leave to amend the petition for execution and ordered that the notice be made in the Land Registry that the enforcement proceedings are pending against OZTN.
The court apparently stayed the enforcement proceedings awaiting the outcome of the contentious proceedings.
The proceedings are still pending.