9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Skopje, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. 10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicant, represented by a lawyer, filed a compensation claim against another private person (“the debtor”). 12.  On 17 October 1996 the Real Estate Office in Bar (Služba za katastar i imovinsko-pravne poslove Bar) issued a decision to register a mortgage (založno pravo) on the debtor’s flat in favour of the applicant. 13.  On 7 November 1996 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar ruled in favour of the applicant, ordering the debtor to pay 36,000 German Marks, statutory interest and specified legal costs. This judgment became final on 7 January 1997. 14.  On 18 March 1997 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica rejected the debtor’s appeal as having been lodged out of time. 15.  On 16 April 1997 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju) ordering the sale of the debtor’s flat by means of a public auction. 16.  On 5 May 2000 the same court established the value of the flat at issue. 17.  The public auction, scheduled for 1 September 2000, was cancelled on account of the judge’s absence. No further auctions have been scheduled thereafter. 18.  On 31 October 2006 the Court of First Instance stayed the enforcement proceedings (prekida se postupak izvršenja) due to the debtor’s death. On 8 November 2006 this decision was posted on the applicant’s door, after a prior written notice (poslije pismenog obaviještenja rješenje pribijeno na vrata). 19.  On 9 September 2009 the applicant wrote to the President of the Court of First Instance, urging that the decision at issue be enforced and asking that any relevant information in that regard be sent to him at his address in Skopje, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. 20.  On 15 September 2009 the applicant was informed that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed on 31 October 2006. 21.  On 25 September 2009 the applicant wrote again to the President of the Court of First Instance seeking that the enforcement proceedings be expedited. 22.  On 28 September 2009 the applicant proposed that the enforcement proceedings be continued in respect of the debtor’s heirs. 23.  On 13 October 2009 the Court of First Instance in Bar invited the applicant to provide the names and the addresses of the debtor’s heirs within three days, in default of which his request would be considered withdrawn. It was further specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision. 24.  On 9 December 2009 the applicant appealed. He submitted that he did not know the names and the addresses of the debtor’s heirs, and that it was impossible for him to find this out, especially within three days. He further maintained that the court should have acted pursuant to section 32 of the Enforcement Act and should have found the debtor’s heirs, or, alternatively, should have appointed a temporary representative for them without delay (see paragraph 45 below). 25.  On 18 December 2009 the Court of First Instance requested the Real Estate Office in Bar (Uprava za nekretnine, područna jedinica Bar) to provide a property certificate (list nepokretnosti) for the flat at issue. 26.  On 28 December 2009 the Real Estate Office provided the requested certificate, which indicated that the new owners of the flat were B.N. and A.N., the registered address of the former being in Serbia. 27.  On 21 January 2010 the Court of First Instance rendered a decision to continue the enforcement proceedings, designating B.N. and A.N. as the new debtors. On 3 February 2010 this decision was served on A.N. The delivery to B.N. failed as he appeared not to live at the provided address in Serbia. 28.  On 15 April 2010 the Court of First Instance requested the relevant Police Directorate in Serbia to inform it if B.N. had residence there and, if so, at which address. 29.  On 16 February 2011 the Ministry of Justice of Serbia informed the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro that B.N. had a permanent residence in Serbia, but that he actually lived in Montenegro. On 8 March 2011 this information was forwarded to the court in Bar. 30.  On 13 June 2012 the court in Bar invited the applicant to pay 233.88 EUR “for publishing a notice (oglas) in the media, pursuant to section 94 paragraph 6 of the Enforcement Act” (see paragraph 50 below), in default of which the enforcement would be terminated (obustaviti). 31.  On 4 July 2012 the applicant’s objection against the previous decision was rejected as inadmissible. It was specified that, pursuant to section 169 of the Enforcement Act 2011, a notice on sale was to be published in the newspapers (see paragraph 51 below). At the same time, the applicant was informed that on 11 October 2011 another interim measure prohibiting the sale of the flat at issue had been deleted from the register of the Real Estate Office, thus creating the conditions for these enforcement proceedings to be concluded (see paragraph 34 below). 32.  There is no information in the case file that the notice on sale was published in the newspapers or that B.N. was served with the enforcement decision of 21 January 2010. The enforcement proceedings would appear to be still pending. 33.  On 26 February 2004 the debtor passed away. 34.  On an unspecified date in 1997 a private person X instituted civil proceedings against the debtor and another private person. On 7 April 1998 the court in Bar issued an interim measure prohibiting the debtor from selling the flat at issue and ordered that this measure be registered by the Real Estate Office in Bar until these proceedings were concluded. On 10 September 1999 the proceedings ended. On 11 October 2011 the interim measure was deleted, following a relevant order of the court in Bar to that effect. 35.  On an unspecified date in 2008 a private person Y filed a compensation claim against A.N. and three other private persons. On 11 March 2009 these proceedings were registered in respect of the flat at issue by the Real Estate Office (zabilježba spora). On 23 October 2009 these proceedings ended by a court settlement of the parties. On 12 October 2011 the court in Bar ordered that the note on the proceedings be deleted from the register of the Real Estate Office. 36.  On 24 November 2010 the court in Bar requested the Central Bank to calculate the interest rate applicable to the amounts of 34,891.30 EUR and EUR 104.85 starting from 25 March 2004. On 30 November 2010 the Central Bank informed the court in Bar that the requested amounts were EUR 52,411.59 and EUR 157.49, respectively. 37.  There is no information in the case file as to when the applicant’s lawyer ceased to represent him save for the letter of 9 September 2009 in which the applicant asked the courts that all the relevant information be sent to him (see paragraph 19 above).