5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Ryazan. On 29 September 2008 the applicant died. On 3 August 2009 Mr Yaroslav Voblikov, the late applicant’s son (born on 19 August 1977), expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. 6.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant brought a claim against the regional social security service for pension arrears. 7.  On 25 December 2000 the Bilibino District Court of the Chukotka Region granted the applicant’s claim in part. The applicant appealed. On 15 February 2001 the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 December 2000 on appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh consideration. 8.  On 28 April 2001 the District Court partly granted the applicant’s claims. On 4 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 28 April 2001 on appeal. 9.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant obtained a writ of execution. Subsequently the judgment was enforced. 10.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant brought an action against the Treasury of the Russian Federation, seeking compensation for non‑pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings concerning her claim for pension arrears. She argued that the courts had failed to observe the time-limits prescribed by the Russian Code of Civil Procedure. 11.  On 13 January 2003 the Anadyr Town Court of the Chukotka Region partly granted the applicant’s claims. 12.  On 27 March 2003 the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 January 2003 on appeal and remitted the matter to the Town Court for fresh consideration. 13.  On 9 October 2003 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims without consideration on the merits. Referring to Ruling No. 1-P adopted by the Constitutional Court on 25 January 2001, the court noted that current laws did not determine the grounds or procedure for adjudicating a claim for damages on account of the courts’ failure to comply with statutory time‑limits. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“... pursuant to this Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, claims for compensation for damage arising from unlawful actions of a judge should be adjudicated in accordance with the rules – other than the rules of civil procedure which are yet to be determined by the legislature (including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case). The court does not contest the applicant’s constitutional right to sue the state for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, given that Ruling No. 1-P of the Constitutional Court refers to certain rules of adjudication, which have not yet been determined, the court considers that it should discontinue the consideration of the [applicant’s] claims.” 14.  On 13 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 October 2003 on appeal, finding as follows:
“The current rules governing the adjudication of civil claims, as set forth in the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, do not take into account all the specifics of the matters concerning compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions or failure to act on the part of a court (or judge) when the case is not considered on the merits. This is supported by the prescription made by the Constitutional Court for the [Parliament of Russia] to legislate on the issue. Therefore, the current rules [of civil procedure] do not apply to the adjudication of the applicant’s claims.”