4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Valjevo. 5.  The applicant worked as a truck-driver in a company (“E”) until a work-related accident in July 1990. 6.  On 27 February 1991 the employer declared him redundant. On 9 July 1992 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Valjevo quashed this decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. This judgment became final on 9 September 1992. 7.  On 12 July 1993 and 30 January 1996 the applicant was reassigned to a position of a tractor-driver and a dumper-driver, respectively. 8.  On 9 May 1996 the applicant was dismissed. 9.  On 29 September 1999 the applicant was reinstated following a court order in that respect (see paragraph 15 below). On 2 March 2000 he was dismissed again. 10.  The applicant had instituted a number of civil and criminal proceedings in respect to the above: 11.  On 6 July 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Labour Court (Sud udruženog rada) in Šabac against his employer seeking payment of salary arrears due from 6 July 1987 to 1 March 1993. On 9 September 1993 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) of Serbia delegated the Municipal Court in Šabac to trial the case. 12.  Following remittals in 1995 and 2001, on 28 February 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim. On 28 April 2006 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Šabac upheld the judgment of 28 February 2006. 13.  On 8 March 2007 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible. 14.  On 13 September 1993 the applicant instituted labour dispute before the Municipal Court in Valjevo seeking revocation of the employer’s decisions of 12 July 1993, 30 January 1996 and 9 May 1996 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above), reinstatement, as well as compensation of due salary arrears, pension benefits and damages. On 18 February 1997 the Supreme Court delegated the Municipal Court in Čačak to trial the case. 15.  On 23 February 1999 the Municipal Court, in a partial judgment (delimična presuda), ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and dismissed his request for revocation of the employer’s decision of 12 July 1993 and his claim for the payment of pension benefits. On 26 August 1999 the District Court in Čačak upheld the judgment of 23 February 1999. 16.  On 9 May 2000 the Municipal Court suspended the proceedings until a final resolution of the labour dispute instituted by the applicant in 1999 (see Part B.3 below). On 12 July 2000 the District Court upheld the decision of 9 May 2000. 17.  On 23 November 2009 the applicant requested the proceedings to be resumed. 18.  On 5 March 2010, the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Čačak, now acting as the competent court, rejected the applicant’s request pending the outcome of his request for reopening of the case instituted by him in 1999 (see paragraph 28 below). On 17 June 2010 the High Court (Viši sud) in Čačak quashed this decision and reversed the case for reconsideration. 19.  On 21 December 2012 the Court of First Instance rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation of due salary arrears. On 10 April 2013 the High Court quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial. 20.  According to the information in the case-file, the proceedings are still pending before the Court of First Instance. 21.  On 6 October 1999 the applicant filed with the Municipal Court in Valjevo a lawsuit seeking revocation of the employer’s decision of 29 September 1999 (see paragraph 9 above). 22.  On 8 March 2000 the applicant filed with the same court a lawsuit seeking revocation of the employer’s decision of 2 March 2000 (see paragraph 9 above). 23.  On 21 June 2000 the Municipal Court joined the two sets of proceedings, ruled partly in favour of the applicant and quashed the employer’s decision of 29 September 1999. 24.  On 16 February 2001 the District Court in Valjevo upheld the judgment of 21 June 2000 in its part favourable to the applicant, quashed it in the remaining part and ordered a retrial in that respect. 25.  Following remittals in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on 21 June 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim for revocation of the employer’s decisions of 9 May 1996 and 2 March 2000, reinstatement and payment of due salary arrears and other employment related benefits. 26.  On 22 December 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. 27.  On 19 April 2007 and 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible. 28.  On 2 November 2009 the applicant filed a request for reopening of the case. On 14 May 2010 the Court of First Instance in Valjevo rejected this request. On 23 December 2010 the High Court in Valjevo upheld the decision of 14 May 2010. 29.  On 14 January 2011 the applicant submitted new request for reopening of the case. It would appear that this request is still pending before the Court of First Instance in Valjevo. 30.  On 26 October 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Municipal Court in Valjevo against his former employer for the payment of employment related benefits due from 1 September 1985 to the date of judgment. 31.  On 10 September 2007 Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim. On 31 January 2009 the District Court in Valjevo upheld the judgment of 10 September 2007. 32.  On 12 June 2008 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible. 33.  On 5 February 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Municipal Court in Valjevo against his former employer seeking payment of salary arrears due in the period from 1 April 1994 to the date of judgment. 34.  Following a partial reversal in 2009, on 26 January 2011 the Court of First Instance in Valjevo, now acting as the competent court, rejected the applicant’s claim. 35.  On 7 March 2012 the Appeals Court upheld the judgment of 26 January 2011. 36.  On 5 March 2010 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the High Court in Valjevo seeking compensation of damages from the respondent State for alleged judicial malfeasance in several civil and enforcement proceedings including, inter alia, those described in Parts B.1, 2, 3 and 5 above. 37.  On 18 September 2012 the High Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant awarding him 200,000 Serbian dinars (1,725 euros[1]) on account of non-pecuniary damages. 38.  On 18 January 2013 the Appeals Court quashed the High Court judgment and ordered a retrial. 39.  According to the information in the case-file, the proceedings are still pending before the High Court. 40.   On 30 April 2008 the District Court in Valjevo dismissed the applicant’s request for criminal investigation filed on 4 June 2007 against private persons for alleged criminal offence of perjury and forgery of documents related to the applicant’s employment. 41.  By 5 May 2008 the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s requests for criminal investigation and indictments against several judges sitting in his civil cases. 42.  On 5 November 2008 the District Public Prosecutor (Okružni javni tužilac) in Užice dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint against several judges and prosecutors. 43.  On 20 April 2012 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud) of the Republic of Serbia. 44.  On 25 February 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional appeal inadmissible since the applicant failed to provide documents and information expressly requested by it.