4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Tver, a town in the Tver Region. In 1997–2003 he was engaged in two sets of civil proceedings. 5.  The applicant sued a municipal maintenance enterprise for its failure to repair a leaking roof in his house. On 17 November 1997 the Central District Court of Tver ordered the enterprise to repair the roof by 15 December 1997. This judgment became binding on 27 November 1997. According to the Government, this judgment was enforced on 15 December 2000. According to the applicant, this judgment has not been enforced to date. 6.  In 1998–2001 bailiffs several times terminated the enforcement proceedings considering that the enterprise had repaired the roof, but the applicant asserted that the roof still leaked, and courts ordered the bailiffs to resume the enforcement. 7.  In June 2000 the applicant sued several defendants (among them the Ministry of Justice – the authority responsible for the bailiffs) for their failure to enforce the judgment. After one first-instance and one appeal hearing, on 23 December 2002 the District Court found that the bailiffs should not have terminated the enforcement proceedings, ordered them to resume the proceedings, and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles by way of non-pecuniary damages against the Ministry of Justice. This judgment became binding on 18 February 2003 after an appeal hearing. The appeal court stated that the damages were to be paid by the Treasury. 8.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant renounced the resumption of the enforcement proceedings because he had been frustrated by their past inefficiency. On this ground, on 6 May 2003 the bailiffs decided not to resume the enforcement proceedings. 9.  On the Treasury’s request, on 30 May 2003 the Presidium of the Tver Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 December 2002 in the part concerning the damages. The Presidium found that the courts below had misinterpreted material law on non-pecuniary damages and that the bailiffs had not been responsible for the leaks.
The applicant was absent from this hearing. According to him, he had not been summoned. According to the Government, he had been informed about the time and place of the hearing by a letter of 18 May 2003. 10.  In separate proceedings the applicant sued the Savings Bank for its failure to restore the purchasing power of his deposits. He asked the court to hear the case in his absence. 11.  On 5 September 2003 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow held against the applicant. In his appeal of 22 September 2003, the applicant asked for the case to be heard in his absence. In a corrigendum of 23 September 2003 the applicant asked for the case to be heard in his presence. 12.  On 3 November 2003 the District Court informed the applicant about the time and place of the appeal hearing. 13.  On 24 November 2003 the Moscow City Court rejected the appeal. The applicant was absent from this hearing.