6.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Voronezh. 7.  On 24 May 1998 the applicant’s wife was injured in a road accident. She is incapacitated and the applicant is her guardian. 8.  On 13 October 1998 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh convicted the driver of reckless driving and infliction of serious bodily injuries. The court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation. 9.  On 27 October 1998 the applicant sued the driver on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 10.  On 19 March 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh disallowed his claims because he had not paid the court fee and had not submitted documents showing that he could act on behalf of his wife. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicant resubmitted his claims. 12.  On 22 June 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court for a second time disallowed his claims because the applicant had not paid the court fee and had not submitted supporting documents. 13.  On 13 August 1999 the applicant for a third time resubmitted his claims. 14.  On 27 September 1999 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court decided that the applicant should be exempted from the court fee. 15.  On 28 September 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court accepted the applicant’s claims and scheduled the first hearing for 18 January 2000. 16.  On 18 January 2000 the court adjourned the hearing until 6 April 2000, following the applicant’s request that his case be examined with the participation of lay judges. 17.  The hearing of 6 April 2000 was adjourned because counsel for the respondent did not appear. 18.  On 13 April 2000 the hearing did not take place because the representative of the guardianship and wardship authority who had been invited to give an expert opinion on the merits of the case failed to appear. 19.  On 3 May 2000 the court again adjourned the hearing. 20.  On 15 September 2000 the court held a hearing. 21.  On 18 September 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court delivered its judgment, awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for non-pecuniary damage, and severed the claim for pecuniary damage. The applicant did not appeal. The judgment became enforceable on 28 September 2000.
 2.  Supervisory review and second examination of the case 22.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 18 September 2000. 23.  On 7 May 2001 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for supervisory review, quashed the judgment on the ground that the District Court had omitted to examine the claim for pecuniary damage, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the District Court. 24.  The Kominternovskiy District Court scheduled the first hearing for 27 July 2001. 25.  The hearings of 27 July, 10 September, and 15 November 2001, 10 and 23 April, 20 and 31 May 2002 were adjourned because counsel for the respondent or the representative of the guardianship and wardship authority failed to appear, or because the parties asked for an adjournment for the preparation of additional evidence or obtaining the attendance of additional witnesses. 26.  On 7 June 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court held a hearing and delivered judgment. It awarded the applicant RUB 24,059 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 27.  On 23 June 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case. 28.  The Kominternovskiy District Court adjourned the hearings on 23 September, 11 October and 15 November 2002 because the respondent or his counsel did not appear. 29.  On 22 November 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUB 32,048 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 30.  On 4 February 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment became enforceable.
 3.  Supervisory review and third examination of the case 31.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant requested supervisory review of the judgments of 22 November 2002 and 4 November 2003. 32.  On 9 July 2003 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court granted the applicant’s request, quashed the judgments on the ground that the District Court had omitted to examine a part of the applicant’s claim and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the District Court. 33.  The first hearing was scheduled for 27 October 2003. 34.  On 27 October, 19 November, and 11 December 2003 the hearings were adjourned at the request of the prosecutor who participated in the proceedings. 35.  On 9 January 2004 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUB 37,845.44 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 36.  On 25 March 2004 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 37.  On 17 May 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court ordered that the local welfare office (Комитет социальной защиты населения Коминтерновского района г. Воронежа) recalculate the applicant’s pension and pay him RUB 15,804.52 in pension arrears. The judgment became enforceable on 28 May 2001. 38.  The applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs, who opened enforcement proceedings. 39.  On 17 December 2003 the applicant received the amount due. 40.  The applicant sued the local welfare office for compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage caused by the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 17 May 2001. 41.  On 7 April 2005 the Kominternovskiy District Court acknowledged that the delay in enforcement had violated the applicant’s rights and awarded him RUB 5,913.05 against the local welfare office in respect of inflation losses sustained through belated enforcement of the judgment of 17 May 2001. 42.  On an unspecified date the amount awarded was paid to the applicant. 43.  On 3 June 2004 the Kominternovskiy District Court increased the applicant’s pension to RUB 6,100.14 and awarded him RUB 54,495.94 in pension arrears against the local welfare office. The judgment became enforceable on 21 June 2004. 44.  On 19 August 2004 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs, who opened enforcement proceedings. 45.  On 15 December 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. 46.  The applicant received the award on 17 June 2005.