6. On 16 November 1994 the applicant retired. On 20 December 1994 the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) determined the amount of his pension. 7. On 31 October 1996 the applicant requested the Fund to re-calculate the amount of his pension on account of newly discovered evidence. He argued that the Constitutional Court had meanwhile repealed some provisions of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (“the Act”) and had created a legal basis for a higher calculation of his pension. 8. On 25 November 1996 the Fund dismissed his request, holding that the Constitutional Court's decision concerned only persons who had retired as of 1995. 9. On 1 December 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision. 10. On 3 February 1997 the Second Instance Commission within the Fund dismissed the applicant's appeal. 11. In March 1997 the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings (управен спор) before the Supreme Court challenging the lawfulness of the Fund's decisions. 12. On 19 November 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 3 February 1997 as adopted by a body which had not met the statutory requirements to decide in second instance. It referred to the Constitutional Court's decision by which it had abrogated the relevant provisions of the Act in accordance with which the Second Instance Commission within the Fund had been vested with a jurisdiction to decide the appeals against the Fund's first-instance decisions. 13. On 28 January 1998 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”) (Комисија за решавање во втор степен по предметите од пензинското и инвалидското осигурување) dismissed the applicant's appeal restating the reasons adduced by the Fund in its decision of 25 November 1996. 14. On 15 September 1998 the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court against this decision. 15. On 27 October 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Commission's decision and remitted the case for re-examination. It held that the Commission had not examined the applicant's request for reassessment of the previous years' salary as submitted by him, but instead had evaluated the impact of the Constitutional Court's decision on the calculation of the amount of his pension. 16. It appears that on 15 February 2000 the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court as the Commission had failed to decide his claim. 17. On 12 June 2000 the Commission upheld the applicant's appeal and decided that the amount of his pension should be increased. It referred to a Supreme Court's decision given in plenary session concerning the calculation of a pension in compliance with the Constitutional Court's decision mentioned above. 18. On 22 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court that the Commission had not decided his initial claim as submitted in his request. 19. On 7 September 2000 the applicant requested the President of the Supreme Court to join the proceedings and to decide on the merits. 20. On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Court adopted two separate decisions: it dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Commission's decision of 12 June 2000 and it upheld the appeal for failure of the administrative authorities to decide. It also instructed the Commission to decide the applicant's appeal against the Fund's decision of November 1996, as initially submitted. 21. On 28 March 2002 the Commission decided the applicant's claim concerning the adjustment of the amount of his pension. 22. On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law and upheld the Commission's decision. It found that the Commission had correctly calculated the amount of the applicant's pension in compliance with the Constitutional Court's decision. 23. On 9 May 2005 this decision was served on the applicant.