4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Šabac. 5.  The applicant was employed by “Zorka-mineralna đubriva” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”). 6.  On 10 April 2001 the Šabac Municipal Court, by a court order, gave effect to a settlement made by the applicant and the debtor. According to that settlement the debtor had to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings. 7.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court. 8.  On the same date the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order. 9.  On 4 April 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring. 10.  On 11 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings. 11.  On 6 July 2007 the court continued the enforcement proceedings. 12.  On 24 June 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring. 13.  On 26 March 2010 the applicant requested the court once again to continue the enforcement proceedings. 14.  On 27 December 2011 the court considered the request of 26 March 2010 to be a fresh application for the enforcement of the decision of 10 April 2001 and ordered the applicant to submit again a copy of that decision. 15.  As the applicant failed to comply with this this request on 30 January 2012 the court terminated the enforcement. 16.  On 3 July 2003 the Šabac Municipal Court ruled in the favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings. This judgment became final on the same date. 17.  On 29 September 2004 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court. 18.  On 30 September 2004 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order. 19.  On 4 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring. 20.  On 11 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings. 21.  On 4 October 2007 the court continued the enforcement proceedings. 22.  On 3 March 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring. 23.  On 10 July 2002 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process. The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing.