4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. 5.  On 11 December 1998 a local hospital, upon the request of the applicant’s employer, issued a certificate (“the Certificate”) confirming that the applicant had undergone an eight-month medical treatment. The Certificate also specified the applicant’s diagnosis and recommended that his employment should not include night-watchman duties, emotional stresses or irregular working hours. 6.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant was dismissed from his job for health reasons. His claim against the former employer in respect of reinstatement and recovery of salary arrears was rejected by final decision of the Supreme Court on 7 September 2001. The courts established, inter alia, that the Certificate was lawful and did not breach the applicant’s right to private life as the diagnosis had also been reflected in the sick-leave certificates possessed by the employer. 7.  On 22 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the local hospital in the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk claiming that the Certificate was unlawful in so far as it had been issued in breach of his right to private life and seeking damages. 8.  On 5 May 2001 the court referred the claim to the Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) in view of its lack of territorial jurisdiction over the case. 9.  By a letter of 20 November 2001 the President of the District Court returned the claim to the applicant noting that the latter had failed to comply with the procedural rules. No formal decision was taken. 10.  On 17 December 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) ordered the President of the District Court to decide on the admissibility of the applicant’s claim in accordance with the procedural requirements. 11.  On 13 February 2002 the District Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible. 12.  On 23 April 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 13 February 2002 as unfounded and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration of admissibility. 13.  On 27 June 2002 the District Court declared the claim admissible and scheduled a hearing in the case. 14.  On 19 April 2004 the District Court, having held a number of hearings, rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. It noted in particular that the lawfulness of the Certificate had already been verified by the courts in the applicant’s proceedings against his employer and the relevant court decisions had become final and binding. 15.  On 14 July 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the judgment of 19 April 2004. 16.  On 12 August 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 11 July 2005 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that its case list was overloaded but some administrative solutions were to be implemented. 17.  On 16 June 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal as unfounded.