4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the village of Rakitnyy in the Rostov Region. 5.  In 1998 the applicant brought court proceedings against the Social Security Service of the Zernogradskiy District of the Rostov Region (“the Social Security Service”) claiming old-age pension arrears. 6.  By judgment of 27 May 1999, the Zernogradskiy District Court awarded the applicant 3,770.46 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears for the period from August 1998 to April 1999 and RUB 469.21 in monthly payments as from May 1999. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 6 June 1999. 7.  On 7 December 1999 the District Court issued the applicant with writs of execution which he submitted to the bailiffs but they refused to enforce the judgment. 8.  In April 2001 the payment of the applicant’s pension was entrusted to the Zernogradskiy District Agency of the Pension Fund (“the Agency”). In July 2001 the applicant sued the Agency and the Social Security Service for pecuniary damages on account of their failure to enforce the judgment of 27 May 1999. 9.  By judgment of 31 July 2001, the District Court established that the judgment of 27 May 1999 had not been enforced and ordered the Agency to pay the applicant RUB 24,998.55 in pension arrears for the period from August 1998 to July 2001, adjusted in line with the increases in the level of pensions during this period. The District Court revoked the enforcement writs issued in December 1999. 10.  The Agency appealed. It appears that the sole ground of its appeal was that it should not have been held responsible for the period of time when the payment of the applicant’s pension had been entrusted to the Social Security Service. On 10 October 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment. 11.  On 15 January 2002 the amount of RUB 24,998.55 was transferred to the applicant’s account. 12.  On 30 April 2002 the President of the Rostov Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 31 July 2001, as upheld on 10 October 2001. The applicant challenged the above application relying on the Brumarescu judgment and alleging that the quashing of the judgment in his favour would violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 13.  On 23 May 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court set aside the judgment of 31 July 2001, as upheld on appeal, on the ground that it had infringed the rules of civil procedure by re-awarding the applicant the sums due under the judgment of 27 May 1999 and thereby re-considering the issues resolved by that final judgment. The Presidium also noted that the courts had failed to set out detailed calculations of the awarded sums and their conclusions in that part had been unsubstantiated. It remitted the case for a new examination by the District Court. 14.  By judgment of 9 October 2002, the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. The Regional Court reversed the judgment on 27 November 2002 and remitted the case to the District Court. 15.  By judgment of 25 March 2003, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. It noted, among other things, that the Agency had paid the applicant the sums due under the judgment of 31 July 2001 and that those sums had not been claimed from him. 16.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. It endorsed the District Court’s reasoning and noted that the amounts paid to the applicant under the judgment of 31 July 2001 could not be claimed from him under the relevant legislation.