6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Serpukhov in the Moscow Region. 7.  The applicant is in receipt of an old-age pension. 8.  On 23 June 1997 the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions (the “Pensions Law”) was enacted. It introduced a new scheme for calculating retirement benefits – the “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”). 9.  On 1 December 1997 the Ministry of Labour brought in the Regulations on the Implementation of the Pensions Law (“the Regulations”) clarifying the application of the Pensions Law. 10.  On 1 February 1998 the Pension Fund Agency of Serpukhov (“the Agency”) re-assessed the amount of the applicant's pension according to the Pensions Law interpreted in the light of the Regulations, and decided that the IPC to be applied in her case should be 0.525. 11.  On 18 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Russia ruled that the Regulations were unlawful. 12.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour issued the Directive on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Law (“the Directive”). The Directive again specified how the Pensions Law should apply. 13.  By decisions of 24 April, 25 May and 3 August 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia, sitting at three different levels of jurisdiction, confirmed the lawfulness of the Directive. 14.  In January 2000 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Agency, claiming that under the Pensions Law she was eligible to an IPC of 0.7. 15.  On 13 April 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region found in the applicant's favour, having established that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law. In respect of the Agency's argument that it had applied the law in accordance with the Directive, the court noted that the Directive was essentially similar to the Regulations of 1 December 1997, which the Supreme Court had ruled were unlawful. Accordingly, the court ordered the Agency to apply an IPC of 0.7 when calculating the applicant's pension thereby increasing it by RUR 822.5 and awarded her arrears of RUR 4,593.89. 16.  On 22 May 2000 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the judgment of 13 April 2000 became final. 17.  On 16 June 2000 enforcement proceedings commenced. 18.  In June 2000 the Agency applied for a review of the judgment of 13 April 2000 owing to the discovery of new circumstances. It claimed that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia had confirmed the lawfulness of the Directive and contended that since it had been unaware of the decision of the Supreme Court when the judgment in the applicant's favour was delivered, that judgment should be reviewed. 19.  On 16 August 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court granted the Agency's application and re-opened the proceedings. 20.  On 12 September 2000 following a fresh examination of the case the Serpukhov Town Court dismissed the applicant's claims in full having applied the Directive. 21.  On 26 September 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment. 22.  On 6 October 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court stayed the applicant's appeal and invited her to provide a valid explanation for her failure to observe the statutory time-limit of 10 days for appealing against a first-instance judgment, and to pay a court fee in the amount of RUR 87.83. As the applicant failed to fulfil these requirements, on 18 October 2000 the court returned her appeal papers to her. 23.  On 15 November 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court stayed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 6 October 2000 with reference to the same statutory time-limit and invited her to show good cause for her failure to comply with it. On 4 December 2000 it returned the applicant's appeal papers since she had again failed to comply with the requirements. The applicant did not appeal against any of these decisions.