5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Sofia. 6.  In 1997 the Compensation for Owners of Nationalised Real Property Act (“the 1997 Compensation Law”) entered into force. It regulated the granting of compensation for property taken under several laws of a punitive or redistributive nature and which could not be returned physically. 7.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant requested from the regional governor of Sofia region compensation for an apartment which had belonged to his ancestor at the time of its nationalisation in 1949. As he received no reply, at some point in 1998 the applicant challenged the governor’s silence in court. The Sofia City Court quashed the governor’s tacit refusal on 18 June 1999, finding that the applicant had to be compensated with “housing compensation bonds” (жилищни компенсаторни записи) as restitution was not possible. The applicant appealed, challenging the type of compensation awarded to him. On 9 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment and returned the case to it for the compensation amount to be determined. 8.  Instead of ruling on the compensation, the Sofia City Court archived the case; it was only put back on the case roll on 5 July 2002 when the applicant complained. 9.  The Sofia City Court, sitting in its administrative bench, delivered a decision on 19 July 2005. It determined that the amount of total compensation due in respect of the property in question was BGN 23,604, and that the regional governor was liable for costs. The court also ruled that the applicant was to receive compensation in the form of “housing compensation bonds”, in accordance with his share as an heir. The court went on to state that, as evidenced by the heirs certificate issued in 1994 and presented during the proceedings, the applicant and his brother were the two heirs of the owner of the confiscated property. Consequently, the applicant’s share of the inheritance stemmed directly from the law, which provided that the children of the deceased inherited in equal parts. The decision became enforceable on 6 September 2005. 10.  On 26 June 2006 the applicant transmitted to the regional governor a copy of the final court decision of 19 July 2005, asking that it be enforced. He sent another request to that effect on 8 August 2006. 11.  The deputy regional governor replied in writing on 14 February 2007 that the applicant needed to submit a certified copy of the court decision, as well as a certificate attesting to his status as heir and a declaration certified by a notary. 12.  On 19 February 2007 the applicant submitted a certified copy of the court decision of 19 July 2005. He signalled that enforcement continued to be outstanding and emphasised that he had already submitted a certificate attesting to his status as heir to the regional governor, together with his initial request for compensation of 27 November 1997 (see paragraph 7 above). He also pointed out that it was clear from the judicial decision that the heirs in question were two – himself and a sibling of his; pursuant to section 5(1) of the Inheritance Act 1949 he was eligible to receive half of the inheritance and, therefore, half of the compensation awarded by the court. He sought clarification in respect of the declaration requested by the governor. 13.  The deputy governor replied on 5 March 2007 that the declaration was necessary pursuant to section 5 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1998; the latter governed the conditions and order for the payment of experts included in the list under § 4 of the 1997 Compensation Law. 14.  In the meantime, on 19 January 2007, the applicant requested to be issued with a writ of execution on the basis of the 19 July 2005 judgment and, more specifically, in respect of its part concerning the amount of compensation and his consequent share of it. 15.  On 16 March 2007 he was issued with a writ of execution in respect of the compensation owed to him. On 30 March 2007 he asked the bailiff to start forced enforcement proceedings and to collect the related costs and expenses. 16.  On 3 April 2007 the bailiff sent an invitation for voluntary compliance to the governor, signalling that a failure to act upon the 19 July 2005 decision attracted a pecuniary sanction. 17.  The deputy regional governor replied on 20 April 2007 that the compensation proceedings had not been completed because of the applicant’s failure to submit the requested declaration certified by a notary (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). He also indicated that an original writ of execution was needed in order for his office to pay costs and expenses. 18.  On 25 April 2007 the applicant wrote to the regional governor that the ordinance in question did not apply to his case, as it only concerned situations in which the administrative body itself was called upon to determine the compensation amount. In the applicant’s case that amount had been determined in court, which had also ruled that the applicant and his sibling were the only heirs, and the property had to be evenly split between the two of them. 19.  The bailiff sent another letter to the regional governor on 27 April 2007, inviting him to enforce the court decision. He reiterated that the writ of execution had been issued following a final judicial decision which was binding in respect of the parties and in which the court had established all relevant facts as well as the compensation due to the applicant. The bailiff specified that the costs and expenses which the governor was requested to pay related to the enforcement proceedings, that a writ of execution was not necessary in order to claim or collect those expenses, and that they had increased with the passage of time. Finally, the bailiff reiterated that a weekly fine in the amount of BGN 200 would be imposed on the governor in the event of failure to enforce the court decision. 20.  On 10 May 2007 the regional governor challenged in court the bailiff’s acts. He claimed that the lack of enforcement was caused entirely by the applicant’s refusal to submit the notary declaration. On 2 July 2007 the Sofia City Administrative Court held that the governor’s application for judicial review was inadmissible. The court found in particular that the bailiff’s invitations to the governor for voluntary compliance were not acts of forced enforcement and were not therefore subject to judicial review. This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 21 December 2007 in a final decision. 21.  As no further action by the regional governor followed, in March 2009 the applicant once again asked the bailiff to enforce the court decision of 19 July 2005. The bailiff wrote to the governor on 31 March 2009, requesting enforcement and with a reminder that failure to enforce could result in weekly fines of BGN 1,200 and in prosecution. 22.  The deputy regional governor replied on 27 April 2009 that the compensation proceedings had not been completed because of the applicant’s failure to submit the requested declaration about his share of the inheritance in accordance with the Inheritance Act 1949. Two days later the regional governor himself fined the applicant BGN 1,000, to be applied weekly. 23.  On 11 May 2009 the applicant challenged the fine in court. The Sofia City Administrative Court quashed the fine on 8 January 2010, finding that in this case the regional governor was not competent to impose fines as he was not an enforcement body but a debtor, and Mr Yanakiev was not a debtor but a creditor. 24.  By a letter of 19 August 2013 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the final court decision of 19 July 2005 remained unenforced.