6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Krnjak, Croatia. 7.  The applicant and his family lived in a family house in Krnjak where he also ran a restaurant. The owner of that property was his father, who died in 1992. In January 1999 the applicant was declared his legal heir. 8.  In August 1995 the applicant and his family left for Bosnia and Herzegovina. 9.  On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Managing of Certain Property Act (“the Takeover Act”) entered into force. It provided that property situated in the previously occupied territories, and belonging to persons who had left Croatia, was to be taken into the care of, and controlled, by the State. It also authorised local authorities (takeover commissions) to entrust such property for temporary use by third persons. 10.  On 23 May 1996 the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Property of the Municipality of Krnjak (Komisija za privremeno preuzimanje i korištenje imovine Općine Krnjak – “the Takeover Commission”) entitled a certain V.P. to use the applicant's property temporarily, with a view to running the restaurant. 11.  On 15 September 1997 the applicant applied for repossession of his property to the Takeover Commission. He received no reply. 12.  In January 1998 the applicant reiterated his request for repossession and sought annulment of the Takeover Commission's decision of 23 May 1996. 13.  On 4 June 1998 the Takeover Commission replied, without issuing a formal decision, that it had given no decision concerning the applicant's property and that it had no competence to decide on his repossession request. 14.  In June 1998 Parliament adopted the Programme for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons (“the Programme for Return”), regulating the principles for their return and repossession of their property. 15.  In August 1998 the Act on Termination of the Takeover Act (“the Termination Act”) entered into force. It incorporated and gave legal force to the provisions of the Programme for Return providing that those persons, whose property had during their absence from Croatia been given for accommodation of others, had to apply for repossession of their property with the competent local authorities – the housing commissions. 16.  According to the above legislation, on 13 August 1998 the applicant applied for repossession of his property to the Housing Commission of the Municipality of Krnjak (Stambena Komisija Općine Krnjak – “the Housing Commission”). 17.  On 31 August 1998 the Housing Commission informed the applicant about the status and degree of the damage to his property and, on 1 December 1998, invited him to prove the ownership of the property in question. The applicant did so in April 1999, once the inheritance proceedings after his late father had ended in January 1999. 18.  On 4 October 1999 the Housing Commission set aside the Takeover Commission's decision of 23 May 1996. V.P. appealed. 19.  On 14 February 2000 the Municipality of Krnjak, acting as the second-instance administrative authority, dismissed V.P.'s appeal. It also ordered him to vacate the house within 15 days following the receipt of the decision and indicated that otherwise it would bring a civil action against him in the competent municipal court. 20.  Since V.P. failed to comply with the order, on 13 March 2000 the Housing Commission brought an action in the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) seeking his eviction from the property in question. 21.  On 16 May 2000 that court declared the Housing Commission's action of 13 March 2000 inadmissible since, under the Termination Act, the Municipality did not have competence to decide on V.P.'s appeal. It should have rather sent the case-file to the competent appellate authority in the matter, i.e. to the Karlovac Municipal Court. 22.  Following the transfer of the case-file by the Municipality of Krnjak to the Karlovac Municipal Court, on 13 February 2001 that court dismissed V.P.'s appeal against the Housing Commission's decision of 4 October 2000, which thereby became final. 23.  On 20 March 2001 the Housing Commission again brought a civil action against V.P. in the Karlovac Municipal Court seeking his eviction. 24.  The court held hearings on 6 June, 11 October and 22 November 2001. On the last-mentioned date the applicant joined the proceedings as an intervener (umješač) on the side of the Housing Commission. 25.  At the hearing held on 20 February 2002 the court gave judgment accepting the Housing Commission's claim and ordering V.P. to vacate the premises. On 18 March 2002 V.P. appealed. 26.  On 4 March 2003 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final. 27.  On 22 March 2003 V.P. lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija). After it was declared inadmissible by the Karlovac Municipal Court on 5 May 2003 and that decision was upheld on 19 May 2003 by the Karlovac County Court, V.P. brought the issue of admissibility of his appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. It appears that the Supreme Court has so far not given its decision. 28.  Since V.P.'s appeal of 18 March 2002 did not suspend the enforceability, on 11 March 2002 the Housing Commission applied to the Karlovac Municipal Court for enforcement of the judgment of 20 February 2002. 29.  On 18 April 2002 the court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi). V.P. appealed against the writ on 7 May 2002. 30.  On 5 March 2003 the Karlovac County Court dismissed the appeal and the writ thereby became final. 31. Meanwhile, on 1 October 2002 the Amendments to the Act on Areas of Special State Concern (“the 2002 Amendments”) entered into force. They transferred the jurisdiction in the matter from the housing commissions (which were abolished) to the Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction (Ministarstvo za javne radove, obnovu i graditeljstvo – “the Ministry”). Accordingly, the State, represented by the State Attorney's Office, took over the proceedings from the Housing Commission. 32.  On 30 April 2003 V.P. requested the Municipal Court to postpone the enforcement. On 2 September 2003 the court dismissed his request and scheduled an intervention of the bailiff for 1 October 2003. On 12 September 2003 V.P. appealed requesting at the same time transfer of jurisdiction (svrsishodna delegacija) from the Karlovac to the Zagreb Municipal Court. On 15 October 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed his request. 33.  On 27 May 2003 the applicant joined the enforcement proceedings as an intervener on the side of the State. 34.  The bailiff's intervention scheduled for 1 October 2003 was adjourned pending a decision on V.P.'s request for transfer of jurisdiction and because the State Attorney's Office did not receive the summons. The next intervention was scheduled for 22 December 2003. 35.  On 18 December 2003 V.P. filed a new request for postponement of enforcement, which was dismissed. 36.  On 23 December 2003 the bailiff evicted V.P. and the applicant repossessed his property. 37.  On 6 May 2003 the Ministry invited the applicant to contact its competent regional office in order to negotiate a settlement and receive compensation for the prolonged inability to use his property, in accordance with the 2002 Amendments. 38.  The applicant did not reply.