4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the city of Odessa. 5.  On 5 October 1995 the Leninsky District Department of the Ministry of Interior in Odessa (“the Department”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, being a director of a private company, G., on account of tax evasion. The applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond. On 30 October 1998 the department terminated the criminal proceedings. The applicant alleged that despite the above ruling the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. 6.  On 16 April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Department, the Leninsky District Tax Inspectorate of Odessa (“the Inspectorate”) and the Leninsky District Prosecutor's Service of Odessa in the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (“the Suvorovsky Court”) seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the criminal proceedings. 7.  On 22 June 2000 the Suvorovsky Court allowed the applicant's claim in part and awarded him 80,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Inspectorate. The judgment became final. It remained unenforced. 8.  On 21 June 2001 the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force. They provided a right to lodge a cassation appeal within a three-month period with the Supreme Court of Ukraine against court decisions adopted before 21 June 2001 and which had entered into force before that date. The applicant and the Inspectorate appealed in cassation against the judgment of 22 June 2000. 9.  In the period prior to 3 January 2003 courts at three levels considered the admissibility of the applicant's and the Inspectorate's appeals in cassation. On 16 July 2002 the first-instance court left the applicant's appeal in cassation unexamined. 10.  On 3 January 2003 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine transferred the Inspectorate's appeal in cassation to a chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine for consideration. 11.  On 18 February 2004 the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal in cassation by the Inspectorate, quashed the judgment of 22 June 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court. 12.  On 16 May 2005 the Suvorovsky Court appointed the State Treasury co-defendant in the case. 13.  On 14 April 2009 the Suvorovsky Court partly allowed the applicant's claim. The court awarded the applicant UAH 120,000 (about 11,413 euros) to be paid by the State Treasury. 14.  On 25 November 2009 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 14 April 2009. 15.  On 26 November 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court; the proceedings before the latter are still pending. 16.  In May 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company, Reklama, seeking salary arrears. 17.  On 8 April 1999 the Leninsky Court partly allowed the applicant's claim. 18.  On 25 May 1999 the Odessa Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 19.  On 7 June 2000 the Leninsky Court allowed the applicant's claim. 20.  On 18 April 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court, following an objection (protest) by its President, quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 21.  On 20 September 2002 the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa left the applicant's claim unexamined because he had failed to appear before the court. 22.  On 5 February 2003 the same court left the applicant's appeal against that ruling unexamined because it had been lodged out of time. 23.  Further appeals by the applicant were left unexamined or dismissed owing to their procedural shortcomings. 24.  In 2005-2006 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute civil proceedings against the judges who had considered his civil and criminal cases, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him because of actions taken by them in their official capacity. All of his complaints and subsequent appeals were rejected. 25.  Between 1997 and 1999 the company, G., challenged the actions of the Inspectorate before the domestic courts.