5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Moscow. 6.  In 1995 he opened a fixed-term interest-bearing deposit account at the Rostov-on-Don Branch of the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation (“the bank”). On an unspecified date in 1996-1997 the bank unilaterally reduced the interest rate on his deposit account. The applicant sued the bank for reinstatement of the initial interest rate and compensation of unpaid interest and damages. 7.  On 1 April 1999 the applicant challenged the reduction of the interest rate in the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don. On 21 June 1999 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov rendered a default judgment in favour of the applicant, ordering the bank to cancel its decision to reduce the rate. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It remained unenforced. 8.  On 22 March 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, upon the bank’s application for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 21 June 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 9.  Due to non-execution of the above judgment of 21 June 1999 by the Bank, in September 1999, the applicant brought another claim to the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov against the Bank, seeking compensation of unpaid interest and damages. 10.  On 13 July 2000 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov rejected the claim. 11.  On 11 October 2000 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. 12.  On an unspecified date, apparently after the quashing of 22 March 2001, the Proletarskiy District Court decided to join the claims concerning the reduction of the rate and the unpaid interest. 13.  On 9 October 2001 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don found for the applicant in part. It held that the reduction of the interest rate was unlawful and awarded the applicant 184,132.77 Russian roubles (RUB) which he would have received if the interest rate had not been reduced during the validity of the contract, up to 9 October 2001. It rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claims as unfounded. 14.  On 26 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 15.  On 2 April 2002 the applicant was paid RUB 184,132.77, and the enforcement proceedings were closed. 16.  On 5 April 2002 the applicant introduced a request for clarification of the judgment of 9 October 2001, claiming that the latter obliged the bank to renew the regular payments on the basis of unreduced interest rate. On 18 September 2002 the Rostov Regional Court in the final instance rejected his claim, having found that the renewal issue had not been a subject-matter of the judicial decision of 9 October 2001. 17.  On 6 May 2003 the applicant brought separate proceedings against the bank for payments under the initial interest rate according to the deposit agreement to be calculated from 10 October 2001, as well as for non‑pecuniary damage. He relied on the judgment of the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov of 9 October 2001, which had recalculated the rate until the latter date. 18.  On 25 March 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov‑on‑Don found for the applicant and ordered the bank to recalculate the interest rate as from 10 October 2001, on the basis of the findings made in the judgment of the Proletarskiy District Court of 9 October 2001. The court further rejected the claims for non-pecuniary damage as having no basis in domestic law. 19.  On 2 June 2004 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 20.  On 30 June 2005 the bank produced documents confirming recalculation of the rate, as required by the judgment of 25 March 2004. By a decision issued on the same date the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings, since the above judgment had been complied with in full. 21.  On 28 July 2004 the Proletarskiy District Court allowed the bank’s request of 12 July 2004 for restoration of the time-limit for an application for supervisory review of the final judgment of 9 October 2001. According to the applicant, he was not informed about the hearing. 22.  On an unspecified date the bank lodged an application for supervisory review. 23.  On 26 August 2004 a judge of the Rostov Regional Court rejected the application. 24.  On an unspecified date the bank lodged a request for quashing of the judgment of 9 October 2001 due to newly discovered circumstances, namely, the new case-law of the domestic courts of 2003-2004 and the authoritative interpretation of the domestic law provisions by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued on 14 July 2004. 25.  On 22 November 2004 the Proletarskiy District Court rejected the request. On 19 January 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. The courts found that the changed case-law did not constitute a newly-discovered circumstance. The courts noted, however, that it remained open for the bank to bring a request for supervisory review of the judgment in question on procedural grounds. 26.  Meanwhile, the bank applied to the President of the Rostov Regional Court with a request to revise a refusal to initiate the supervisory‑review proceedings, arguing that the courts incorrectly applied domestic law to the circumstances of the case. 27.  On 2 June 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the final judgment of 9 October 2001, as upheld on 26 December 2001, by way of the supervisory-review proceedings. The Presidium found that the lower courts had incorrectly established the facts of the case. In particular, it noted that the District Court had omitted to examine whether the applicant had been informed of the entirety of contents of the deposit agreement and whether he had had agreed to a subsequent change of the interest rate without his explicit approval. Furthermore, it found that the lower courts had wrongly interpreted the domestic law, since they had based their judgments on the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation inapplicable to the dispute at stake. The case was remitted for a fresh examination. 28.  According to the applicant, he was not informed about the hearing of 2 June 2005 and learned about it on 6 July 2005 only. 29.  At some point the applicant challenged the decision of 28 July 2004 on appeal. On 30 November 2005 the Rostov Regional Court rejected his request and upheld the decision. 30.  On 1 July 2005 the Proletarskiy District Court on the Bank’s request issued an interlocutory injunction seizing the applicant’s bank account. On 24 August 2005, the Rostov Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. 31.  On 27 July 2005, as a result of re-consideration of the case after the quashing by way of supervisory review (see paragraph 27 above), the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov rejected the applicant’s claims. 32.  On 24 August 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 33.  On 11 October 2005 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov decided that the applicant should reimburse to the bank RUB 184,132.77 which he had earlier received under the reversed judgment of 9 October 2001. The judgment was not appealed against. 34.  On 13 March 2006 the above amount was debited from the applicant’s account.
(b)  As regards further recalculation of payments 35.  On 18 October 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court, acting upon the bank’s request and referring to the ruling of the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court of 2 June 2005 (see paragraph 27 above), quashed its judgment of 25 March 2004 due to newly established circumstances and ordered a fresh examination of the case. 36.  On 14 November 2005 the same court rejected the applicant’s claims. 37.  On 16 January 2006 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
(c)  As regards enforcement of the judgment of 25 March 2004 38.  At some point the applicant challenged the bailiffs’ decision of 30 June 2005 to discontinue the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 25 March 2004 as unlawful. He argued that the judgment remained unenforced. According to him, even though the bank had made a recalculation of the interest rate, the calculation had been incorrect and the applicant had not received respective arrears due to him. 39.  On 12 October 2005 the Leninskiy District Court rejected the claim. On 30 November 2005 the decision was annulled on appeal and the case sent for a fresh consideration. 40.  On 1 February 2006 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed his action. The court found, first, that the judgment of 25 March 2004 had been quashed on 2 June 2005, the applicant’s claims had been considered afresh and rejected. In these circumstances, his claim for enforcement of the award of 24 March 2005 was devoid of purpose. Second, the court observed that in any event the respondent bank had duly complied with the obligation to recalculate the interest rate as ordered by the judgment of 25 March 2004. At the same time, the latter judgment had not contained an obligation to pay any pecuniary award to the applicant. 41.  On 15 March 2006 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 42.  On 9 February 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov granted the Bank’s claim and dissolved the deposit agreement of 11 May 1995 due to substantially changed circumstances. On 25 April 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and awarded the applicant RUB 5,000 of compensation of non-pecuniary damage. 43.  It appears that the applicant had not received the compensation.