5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region. 6. On 31 July 1998 the applicant, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Gorovaya and MP Kineskop, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods. 7. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court. 8. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings. 9. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant's representative amended the claims. 10. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed. 11. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended. 12. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court. 13. On 9 July 2001 the applicant's representative requested that the decision of 3 October 2000 be set aside for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant had been duly notified of the hearings. By a decision of 12 July 2001, the District Court allowed the request and resumed the proceedings. 14. By a decision of 5 September 2001, the District Court invited the Taganrog Custom Service to join the civil proceedings as a third party. 15. Upon the third party's request of 10 October 2001, the proceedings were stayed because a related administrative case had been pending before another court. On 30 September 2002 they were resumed. 16. Between 30 September and 20 December 2002, three hearings were adjourned because the parties had failed to attend. 17. On 20 December 2002 the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court. 18. The proceedings were resumed on 23 January 2004, upon the request of the applicant's representative of 19 January 2004, because neither he, nor the applicant had been properly summoned to the hearings. 19. Of ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned owing to Mrs O.'s absence, two owing to the parties' absence, one at the request of the applicant's representative and two because the presiding judge was on leave. 20. By a judgment of 16 November 2004, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim.  On 16 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2004 on appeal and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 21. The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed the first hearing for 18 May 2005. Of three hearings fixed between 18 May and 28 June 2005, two were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and one was adjourned at the defendants' request. 22. On 28 June 2005, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings. 23. The proceedings were later resumed and, by a judgment of 15 December 2005, the Kyubyshevskiy District Court allowed the applicant's action in part.  The judgment of 15 December 2005 was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court on 8 February 2006.