4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  On 14 April 1992 the Imotski Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Imotskom) gave judgment ordering a certain A.B. to pay the applicant the equivalent of 14,000 German marks in Yugoslav dinars. 6.  On 10 December 1992 the applicant applied for enforcement of the above judgment. Shortly afterwards the court issued a writ of execution by seizure of A.B.'s movable property. 7.  It appears that before 5 November 1997 (the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia) the court made several unsuccessful attempts to seize A.B.'s movables. 8.  On 17 July 2000 the court ordered A.B. to disclose his assets (prokazni popis imovine). However, since A.B. failed to comply with that order, on 3 September 2001 the applicant asked that the enforcement be carried out on the A.B.'s bank accounts. 9.  The court held a hearing on 25 April 2002 concerning the applicant's proposal and on 14 May 2002 sent letters to all banks in the Imotski region asking for information of A.B.'s bank accounts. 10.  Since the banks' replies lacked certain information, the court again sent letters to the banks on 12 December 2002 asking for further details of A.B.'s bank accounts. 11.  The hearing scheduled for 2 October 2003 was adjourned because the applicant failed to appear. 12.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant asked that the enforcement be carried out on A.B.'s account in a bank in Zagreb. 13.  The court issued a new writ of execution on 13 April 2004. 14.  On 8 April 2005 the court held a hearing in order to verify compliance with the writ of execution. 15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending since neither party informed the Court of the contrary. 16.  Meanwhile, on 24 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining in substance about the length of the above enforcement proceedings. On 4 May 2004 that court replied, without issuing a formal decision, that it lacked jurisdiction since the applicant did not file his complaint against any individual decision issued by a State body.