4.  The applicant lives in Kocani, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 5.  During 1978/1979 the applicant opened two certificates of deposits in foreign currency in the Kocani office of the “Stopanska Banka” Skopje (“the bank”) for a fixed period of 25 months. The terms of the agreement were stated on the cover of the bank account savings card. There was a bank stamp which defined three terms of the deposit: the amount of the savings, the duration of the deposit and the interest rate of 10%. Since the parties did not terminate the agreement after it expired, it was considered that the certificate was extended. Until 1992 the bank continued to pay him interest, but at differing rates. 6.  On 18 June 1991 the applicant brought a civil claim against the bank for payment of the difference in the interest rate. He claimed that the bank had applied a lower interest rate than agreed. 7.  On 30 October 1991 the then Kocani Municipal Court (Општински суд Кочани) dismissed the applicant's claim. It found that until the end of October 1982, the applicant had received 10% interest. From October 1982 until the end of June 1986, the bank paid the applicant 11% interest, which was 1% higher than stated at the bank stamp on the bank account savings card. From 1 July 1986 until the end of 1990, the bank paid the applicant interest at a rate lower than 10%. This was in accordance with a bank decision, which was based on an inter-bank agreement which stipulated that domiciliary interest rate was to be calculated on the foreign currency deposits as of July 1986. In pursuance of that inter-bank agreement, the bank paid the applicant domiciliary interest lower than 10%. In absence of a written contract specifying a fixed interest rate and the fact that the applicant accepted the payment of an interest of 11% for a certain period, the court concluded that the parties had agreed on a variable interest rate. 8.  On 30 December 1991 the applicant appealed against the decision. 9.  On 20 November 1992 the then Stip District Court (Окружен суд Штип) upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed the lower court's decision and ordered a retrial. It instructed the lower court to establish whether there had been an agreement between the parties or not, i.e. to examine whether the stamp on the bank account savings card could be treated as an agreement. 10.  On 14 May 1993 the Kocani Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim. It found that the terms of the certificate of deposit, as stated on the bank stamp, had been agreed upon by the parties and remained valid afterwards. 11.  On 11 June 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision asking the court to calculate the interest in foreign, not domestic currency. On 15 June 1993 the bank also lodged an appeal. 12.  On 9 July 1993 the Stip District Court upheld the appeals and ordered a retrial. It found that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts about the period of validity of the certificate of deposit. It also instructed it to obtain an expert opinion to establish whether the interest for the respective period had been paid in foreign currency or not. 13.  On 24 March 1994 the Municipal Court partially upheld the applicant's claim. It found that the bank stamp had to be considered as an agreement between the parties and ordered the bank to pay the difference in interest. The court dismissed the applicant's claim to calculate this difference in foreign currency. 14.  On 27 April 1994 the applicant appealed against this decision as the interest should be calculated in foreign currency and paid either in foreign currency or in denar counter value according to the exchange rate valid on the date of the payment. 15.  On 4 October 1994 the District Court upheld the applicant's appeal and overturned the decision. It found that there had been an unlawful enrichment by the bank. It held also that the difference in interest should be paid in foreign currency. 16.  Once the District Court decision became final and executive, on 1 February 1995 the applicant requested the court to enforce his claim. 17.  On 1 February 1995 the Kocani Municipal Court ordered the Payment Office to enforce the decision and to transfer the money due to the account of the applicant's representative (“the order”). 18.  On 13 February 1995 the Municipal Court dismissed the bank's objection (приговор) and ordered the enforcement of the order. 19.  On 30 June 1995 the Stip District Court dismissed the bank's appeal and upheld the order. The money was transferred to the applicant. 20.  Before instituting the enforcement proceedings, on 4 January 1995 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) challenging the District Court's decision as it had not charged the bank with interest on the amount awarded. The bank also appealed to the Supreme Court. 21.  On 26 February 1997 the Supreme Court upheld the parties' appeals on points of law and quashed the District Court's decision of 4 October 1994. It held that the lower court had wrongly applied national law. It also instructed the District Court to give consideration to the fact that the applicant had accepted the payment of a higher interest (11%) for a certain period of time and that he had complained only when the bank had paid him lower interest. It held that such behaviour implied that the applicant had agreed to a variable interest rate. 22.  On 17 November 1997 the Stip Court of Appeal quashed the trial court's decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts, in particular as to the applicant's reaction when the bank had paid him higher interest (11%) than what was allegedly agreed. 23.  On 10 December 1997 the bank requested counter-enforcement (противизвршување) of the money transferred to the applicant. 24.  On 10 February 1998 the Court of First Instance upheld the bank's request (“the second order”). On 19 February 1998 the applicant appealed against the second order. On 10 April 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. On 17 September 1999 the Court of First Instance rejected the bank's request for counter-enforcement as out of time. 25.  The proceedings on the merits resumed on 12 July 2000 when the bank requested adjournment. The next hearing was listed for 27 September 2001. The hearing of 24 October 2001 was adjourned due to the trial judge's absence. The hearing of 12 November 2001 was postponed on the applicant's request. 26.  On 23 November 2001 the Kocani Court of First Instance dismissed as ill-founded the applicant's claim. It found that the applicant had been aware of and had accepted the payment of the interest rate of 11% (from October 1982 until July 1986) without challenging it. It also found that the applicant should have been aware of the bank's decision for a lower interest rate on foreign currency deposits after July 1986, since it had posted the announcement at the bank counters. The court furthermore concluded that an agreement for a variable interest rate existed between the parties. 27.  On 4 February 2002 the applicant appealed against this decision. 28.  On 29 May 2002 the Stip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. It found no reasons to depart from the trial court's reasoning that the parties had agreed on a variable interest rate in pursuance to the bank's internal regulations. 29.  According to the applicant, the decision was served on him on 28 June 2002.