5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Togliatti, Samara Region. 6.  In May 1999 the applicant was injured in a road accident; in particular, his arm was broken. Immediately after the accident he was taken to hospital, where he was given first aid. Several days later his arm was amputated. 7.  In October 1999 the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the hospital before the Nikolaevskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region. He claimed that the hospital’s medical staff had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care and that their negligence had led to the loss of his arm. 8.  On 2 April 2001 the court examined the case in a public hearing at which the applicant, his representative and the defendant were present. It heard the parties and witnesses and examined other evidence. 9.  At the close of the hearing the court read out the following operative part of the judgment:
“On 2 April 2001 the Nikolayevskiy District Court, composed of ..., having examined in an open court session a civil case which originated in an application by Biryukov Ryakib Ismailovich against the Nikolaevskaya [Hospital] for compensation for bodily harm, on the basis of Article 1064 of [the Civil Code of the Russian Federation] and being governed by Articles 14, 50, 191, 194-97 of [the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic],
decided:
To reject the claims by Biryukov Ryakib Ismailovich against the Nikolaevskaya Central District Hospital of the Ulyanovsk Region for compensation for bodily harm.
An appeal or a protest against the judgment to the Ulyanovsk Regional Court can be lodged with the Nikolayevskiy District Court within ten days.” 10.  A copy of the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant on 6 April 2001. It stated that, according to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, harm inflicted on the person or property of an individual is to be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the harm. After a description of the evidence examined by the court, the judgment contained the court’s finding that there had been no malpractice on the part of the hospital staff and no causal link between the treatment and the amputation of the applicant’s arm. For those reasons the applicant’s claims were rejected. 11.  The applicant appealed, inter alia, on the grounds that the district court had not read out the full text of the judgment at the hearing. 12.  On 3 July 2001 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal at a public hearing. Having heard the parties, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment. It noted that by reading out the operative provisions of the judgment at the hearing and providing the applicant with a copy of the reasoned judgment within the established time‑limit the district court had fully complied with the Code of Civil Procedure, notably Article 203. 13.  According to the Government, the Regional Court read out the operative provisions of its decision at the hearing in the applicant’s presence and later served a copy of its reasoned decision on the applicant.