4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Makiyivka. 5.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Tsentralno‑Misky District Court of Makiyivka (Центрально-міський суд м. Макіївка) against the Makiyivka Municipal Medical Association (Макіївське міське медичне територіально-педіатричне об’єднання), seeking reinstatement in the position of a speech therapist and compensation for the loss of income. 6.  On 21 January 1999 the court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation. 7.  On 11 March 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court (Донецький обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the grounds that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the material circumstances of the case. 8.  On 18 January 2000 the case-file was destroyed by fire in the court building. In April 2000 the proceedings were renewed. 9.  Between April 2000 and January 2001 the Tsentralno-Misky Court scheduled some twenty-four hearings. Three of these hearings were adjourned on account of the defendant’s failure to appear, two on account of the applicant’s absences and six hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of witnesses, mostly the defendant’s employees. On some five occasions the court adjourned the hearings following the court’s decision to allow the applicant’s demands to summon witnesses and request additional documents from the defendant. 10.  On 12 January 2001 the Tsentralno-Misky Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation. 11.  On 15 February 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 January 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, having found that the first-instance court had failed to comply with a number of procedural requirements, in particular, those concerning renewal of the proceedings after the loss of the case-file. Further, the court held that still not all relevant circumstances had been explored. 12.  Between April and December 2001 the first-instance court scheduled eleven hearings, some seven of them being adjourned following the court’s decision to allow the applicant’s demands that the defendant provides additional documents. 13.  By letter of 24 September 2001 the court reprimanded Mrs M., the defendant’s chief officer (головний лікар), for repetitive failures of its representative to provide the documents needful for the resolution of the case. In particular, the court noted that the defendant had been repeatedly providing incomplete, inaccurate or irrelevant records, causing the court to adjourn the hearings, and obliged her to ensure the provision of a number of missing documents. The court further requested the chief officer to ensure the appearance of the defendant’s employees summoned by it as witnesses. 14.  In October and November 2001 Mrs M. submitted to the court clarifications concerning various inaccuracies in the records provided earlier. 15.  On 5 December 2001 the Tsentralno-Misky Court rejected the applicant’s claims, having found that she had been dismissed in accordance with applicable law. On 21 December 2001 the court provided expanded reasoning for its conclusions, responding to the applicant’s arguments, which it had not dealt with in its previous judgments. The applicant appealed. 16.  On 18 February 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 December 2001. The applicant appealed in cassation. 17.  On 4 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.