5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant retired from the position as a consultant at the Ministry of Finance of Russia. 7.  In 1996 – 1997 he repeatedly applied to the Ministry of Labour for additional retirement benefits due to former State employees. By decision of 3 October 1997 a deputy Minister granted the applicant’s request and increased his pension as of 9 September 1997. 8.  Thereafter the applicant sued the Ministry of Labour seeking arrears for the period between 1 April 1996 and 8 September 1997. 9.  On 19 December 1997 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims, stating that the applicant had only become eligible for a higher pension as of 9 September 1997 and therefore he had no right to arrears. 10.  On 14 April 1998 the Moscow City Court set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 11.  On 15 September 1999 the Basmanny District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour confirming his entitlement to additional retirement benefits as of 1 April 1996 and ordered the Ministry of Labour to re-calculate his pension. 12.  No appeal was lodged, and on an unspecified date the judgment of 15 September 1999 became final. 13.  On 25 November 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced. 14.  On 26 October 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999. 15.  On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined and rejected the extraordinary appeal in supervisory review proceedings, thus upholding the judgment of 15 September 1999. 16.  On 2 February 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General filed another extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000. 17.  On 23 February 2001 the Civil Section of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000, and remitted the case to the first instance court. It is not clear whether the applicant has pursued the proceedings. 18.  In 2001 – 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review of the decision of 23 February 2001. 19.  During the fresh examination, on 27 February 2003, the Basmanny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. 20.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the above judgment. 21.  By decision of 29 August 2003 the Basmanny District Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal brief as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of ten days.