4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  In 1986, while being employed by the Municipal Cargo Department of the Ministry of Automobile Transport (Київське міське управління вантажного автомобільного транспорту), the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the Chernobyl disaster site. Subsequently the applicant was employed by “A.T.E.”, an automobile transportation company. 6.  On 30 March 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Radyansky District Court of Kyiv (Радянський районний суд м. Києва)[1] against the Municipal Department of Automobile Transport (Київське міське територіальне виробниче об’єднання автомобільного транспорту) claiming compensation for health damage sustained in Chernobyl. On 10 January 1995 the court decided to leave the applicant’s claims without consideration for having been lodged against an improper defendant. On 15 March 1995 the Kyiv City Court (Київський міський суд)[2] quashed this ruling and remitted the case for an examination to the first-instance court. 7.  On 14 July 1995 the first-instance court found in part for the applicant. On 27 September 1995 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 8.  On 28 February 1997 the first-instance court found against the applicant. On 9 April 1997 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 9.  On 19 September 1997 the first-instance court found in part for the applicant. This judgment became final. 10.  On an unspecified date the Kyiv Department of Justice (Управління юстиції в м. Києві) initiated an investigation into the absence of the verbatim record of the hearing of 19 September 1997 from the case-file. In January 1998 they informed the applicant that contrary to the requirements of applicable law the verbatim record had never been finalised. 11.  On numerous occasions the applicant sought the issuance of the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 19 September 1997. However, he was informed by the Department of Justice that the writ could not be issued due to the investigation. 12.  On 6 April 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed the judgment of 19 September 1997 upon the supervisory protest of its President lodged under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 13.  On 2 October 1998 the court replaced the defendant in the case by the “A.T.E.”. 14.  On 23 October 1998 the first-instance court found against the applicant. 15.  On 18 November 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment following the applicant’s appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 16.  On 3 February 1999 the Radyansky Court decided to transfer the case to the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv (Старокиївський районний суд м. Києва). On 14 April 1999 the Kyiv City Court, upon the protest of its Vice-President, quashed this ruling under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case back to the Radyansky Court. 17.  On 8 June 1999 the Radyansky Court replaced the defendant in the case by the Kyiv City Department of the Social Security Fund. 18.  On 15 July 1999 the Radyansky Court ordered the Kyiv City Bureau of Court Experts (Київський науково-дослідний інститут судових експертиз) to carry out an assessment of the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant. 19.  On 25 May 2000 the Bureau delivered its assessment to the court. 20.  On 8 June 2000 the Radyansky Court found in part for the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation. 21.  On 26 July 2000 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment in part concerning the payment of court fees and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration. 22.  On 24 April 2001 the Kyiv City Court upon the protest of its Vice-President quashed the rulings of 8 June and 26 July 2000 under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration. 23.  In November 2001 the defendant in the case was replaced by the “A.T.E.” and the Municipal Chernobyl Affairs Department (Управління у справах захисту населення від наслідків аварії на Чорнобильській АЕС Київської міської державної адміністрації). 24.  On 18 April 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him a lump sum in compensation from the Chernobyl Affairs Department. Both parties appealed. 25.  On 18 June 2002 the Kyiv City Court upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation. According to the law in force at the material time, the cassation appeal was filed with the first-instance court, which was to verify its compliance with procedural rules. 26.  On 26 November 2002, after the applicant rectified procedural shortcomings of his cassation appeal, the first-instance court transferred it to the Supreme Court. 27.  On 5 March 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 28.  The applicant also submitted a large number of other court decisions adopted in different cases against his former employers and various State bodies in 1994-2001.