4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Volsk, a town in the Saratov Region. 5.  In 2001–2006 the applicant participated in three actions. 6.  In his ﬁrst action the applicant applied to a court for the status as a Chernobyl victim. On 4 December 2002 the Volsk Town Court rejected this claim. The applicant did not lodge an ordinary appeal against this judgment. 7.  In his second action the applicant sued his former employer, the Tax Police, for an extension of his working record, which would result in an increase of his pension. On 4 February 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov obliged the defendant to formally include in the applicant’s working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police. This judgment became binding on 20 February 2004, but the Tax Police failed to update the applicant’s working record. The applicant sought the assistance of bailiffs in the enforcement of this award, but on 4 November 2004 bailiffs stopped the enforcement proceedings because in July 2004 the Tax Police had been disbanded. 8.  In his third action the applicant resubmitted his previous claim against the successor of the Tax Police – the Saratov Regional Police. He asked to formally include in his working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police. On 27 May 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov granted this claim, and obliged the defendant to formally include in the applicant’s working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police and to recalculate his pension accordingly. This judgment became binding on 18 July 2005. 9.  On the Regional Police’s request, the President of the Saratov Regional Court applied for a supervisory review of this judgment. The supervisory-review hearing was ﬁxed for 3 April 2006. According to the Government, on 21 March 2006 the court mailed to the applicant a summons and left a telephone message with his wife. 10.  On 3 April 2006 the Presidium of Regional Court quashed the judgment on the ground that the courts below had misinterpreted material laws. This hearing was chaired by the President of the Regional Court. The applicant was absent from this hearing.