4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Zaporizhia, Ukraine. 5.  In June 2002 the applicant had a work-related accident in which he was injured. Later he received the status of a partially disabled person. 6.  On 14 August 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against his employer, the OJSC “Zaporizhshaskloflyus, seeking a declaration that his disability had been caused by the injury. He also claimed payment of UAH 33,000 (about 6,724 euros, EUR) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from his disability. 7.  On an unspecified date the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”) joined the proceedings. 8.  On 11 August 2003 the Zavodsky District Court of Zaporizhia (“the District Court”) found against the applicant. On 1 December 2003 the Zaporizhia Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal) quashed that judgment and awarded the applicant UAH 500 (about EUR 76) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Fund. 9. On 24 December 2003 the applicant and the Fund lodged their appeals in cassation with the Supreme Court. 10.  On 17 March 2004 the Fund enforced the judgment. 11.  In January 2005 the applicant sent a request to the Supreme Court seeking information about the state of the proceedings. By letter of 22 February 2005 the Supreme Court informed him that his appeal had not yet been considered and that he would be informed in due course of any decision taken by the Supreme Court. 12.  On 22 November 2005 the Supreme Court, in the applicant's and the Fund's absence, dismissed their appeals in cassation. 13.  In October 2007 the applicant sent a new request to the Supreme Court seeking information about the outcome of his cassation appeal. 14.  By letter of 2 November 2007 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that, due to a clerical error, a copy of the ruling of 22 November 2005 had been sent to a wrong address in December 2005. 15.  The applicant received the letter of 2 November 2007 and the copy of the ruling of 22 November 2005 on an unspecified date in November 2007. 16.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant was dismissed from his job at the OJSC “Zaporizhshaskloflyus”. 17.  On 4 November 2002 he challenged his dismissal before the District Court. On 28 January 2003 the latter found against the applicant. On 6 February 2003 the applicant appealed. In accordance with the requirements of the applicable law, the applicant filed his appeal with the District Court. The latter then transmitted it to the Court of Appeal for consideration. 18.  On 26 February 2003 the Court of Appeal ordered the rectification of some shortcomings of the applicant's appeal and remitted the case to the District Court. On 14 March 2003 the District Court declined the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 28 January 2003 since the applicant failed to rectify the shortcomings within a time-limit allotted by the District Court. The applicant appealed against the ruling of 14 March 2003. On 15 April 2003 the District Court declined his appeal since the applicant failed to comply with procedural formalities. The ruling of 15 April 2005 was not appealed against. 19.  In April 2003 the applicant lodged a new appeal against the judgment of 28 January 2003, having filed it with the District Court. On 9 April 2003 the District Court declined this appeal since it had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. On 8 May 2003 the District Court declined the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 9 April 2003 since the applicant missed a time-limit. The applicant appealed. On 1 July 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 8 May 2003 and remitted the case to the District Court. 20.  On 6 August 2003 the District Court renewed a time-limit for appealing against the ruling of 9 April 2003 and transmitted the applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal. 21.  On 22 September 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 9 April 2003. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision of 22 September 2003. On 14 November 2003 the Supreme Court remitted the applicant's appeal in cassation to the District Court since the applicant had failed to comply with procedural formalities. 22.  On 3 February 2004 the applicant lodged with the District Court an amended cassation appeal against the decision of 22 September 2003. On 23 February 2004 the District Court declined it due to its procedural shortcomings. On 29 April 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 23 February 2004. 23.  In May 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation against the decisions of 23 February 2004 and 29 April 2004. On 14 June 2004 the District Court declined the applicant's cassation appeal due to its procedural shortcomings. On 4 August 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 14 June 2004 and remitted the case to the District Court. 24.  In August 2004 the applicant lodged an amended appeal in cassation against the decisions of 23 February 2004 and 29 April 2004, following the District Court's instructions to rectify the procedural shortcomings of his original appeal. In September 2004 the District Court transmitted his cassation appeal to the Supreme Court for consideration. 25.  On 21 March 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 23 February 2004 and 29 April 2004. The Supreme Court further remitted the case to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal for examination of the applicant's appeal in cassation against the decision of 22 September 2003. On 20 June 2007 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, acting in its cassation jurisdiction, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation and upheld the decision of 22 September 2003. 26.  In the period prior to December 1998 the applicant was working as an Assistant of the Head of the Zaporizhia Temporary Detention Unit. As a result of the negative appraisal given to the applicant in November 1998, he was downgraded. Following this event, he was transferred to a lower position at the suburb of Zaporizhia. 27.  On 10 January 1999 the applicant was dismissed on the ground that he failed to appear at his new work place. The applicant challenged his transferral and dismissal. On 5 May 2000 the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Zaporizhia found against the applicant. On 11 July 2000 the Zaporizhia Regional Court upheld this judgment and it became final. Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully tried to re-open the proceedings. 28.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Komunarsky District Court of Zaporizhia, seeking to oblige the Ukraine Savings Bank to return his indexed deposit. 29.  On 6 July 2001 the court found against the applicant. On 17 January 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and discontinued the proceedings, having found that the applicant's complaint should have been examined in civil proceedings. 30.  On 7 October 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.