6.  The applicant, Mr Pyotr Vladimirovich Kirilenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in the village of Sreznevo in the Ryazan Region. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  On 7 May 2001 Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (“the town court”) ordered the Russian Government and the Savings Bank to jointly pay 106,989.50 Russian roubles (RUB) to the applicant’s father. 9.  On 18 June 2001 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the judgment on appeal. 10.  On 30 August 2001 half of the amount, i.e. RUB 53,494.75, was credited to the account of Ms Yu., the representative of the applicant’s father. 11.  On 16 May 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (“the Presidium”) quashed those judgments and remitted the case to the town court. 12.  By a judgment of 26 June 2002, the town court ordered the Treasury to pay RUB 53,494.54 to the applicant’s father, which corresponded to the difference between the amount awarded on 7 May 2001 and the amount paid out on 30 August 2001. 13.  On 21 August 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 14.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant’s father submitted a writ of enforcement to the Ministry of Finance. 15.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant’s father died. 16.  Having learnt about his father’s death and being his sole heir, the applicant, represented by Ms Yu., sought an extension of the time-limit for claiming his right to receive the debt under the judgment of 26 June 2002. On 30 March 2005 the town court granted the extension. On 1 June 2005 a public notary issued a succession certificate, confirming that the applicant had acquired the right to receive the judgment debt. 17.  Since 2002 the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance have sought supervisory review of the judgment of 26 June 2002, as upheld on 21 August 2002. 18.  On 13 May 2003 the Supreme Court refused the application for supervisory review submitted by the Treasury. 19.  On 22 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance informed Ms Yu. that it had applied for supervisory review of the judgment of 26 June 2002 and therefore would not execute it pending a decision on the application. On 3 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance submitted another application for supervisory review. It appears that these applications were unsuccessful. 20.  In 2006 the Ministry of Finance filed a new application for supervisory review, asking the town court to extend the expired time-limit for introduction of their application. 21.  On 8 August 2006 the town court extended the time-limit for unspecified reasons and accepted the Ministry’s application for consideration. 22.  On 30 November 2006 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 26 June 2002, as upheld on 21 August 2002, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the town court. The applicant was not notified of the date of the hearing and was not provided with a copy of the respondent’s review application. 23.  On 25 December 2006 Ms Yu. submitted a request to review the above decision on the ground that no copy of the respondent’s review application had been served on her. It appears that the request remained without response. 24.  The town court re-examined the case on 25 May 2007 and rejected the claims. Ms Yu. attended the hearing and produced the applicant’s succession certificate and the town court’s decision of 30 March 2005. It does not appear that the parties appealed against the judgment.