4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Pyatigorsk. 5.  On 28 October 1996 a fire broke out in the applicant's flat. The possessions of the applicant's family were destroyed and the applicant's daughter was severely injured. 6.  On 15 April 1997 (on 6 July 1998, according to the Government) the applicant and his wife brought a civil action for damages before the Pyatigorsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region against the local housing maintenance authority, the “Stavropol Tobacco Company” that rented the flat where the fire had begun, and Mr S., an employee of that company whose negligence during gas welding had apparently caused the fire. 7.  On 6 August 1998 the applicant and his wife requested the court to summon additional witnesses on their behalf. The hearing was adjourned until 24 August. 8.  On 24 August 1998 the Pyatigorsk Town Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant's action pending the completion of the criminal investigation against Mr S. 9.  On 18 September 2001 the criminal case against Mr S. was terminated because of an amnesty act. Mr S. disagreed with this decision and complained to the regional prosecutor's office. 10.  On unspecified dates in 1999 and 2000 Judge Ivleva of the Pyatigorsk Town Court confirmed to the applicant that the proceedings were still pending. 11.  According to the Government, on 26 February 2001 the proceedings in the applicant's case were resumed. On 28 February 2001 the applicant and his wife increased their claims to take account of their loss of earnings and medical expenses incurred in connection with the treatment of their injured child. 12.  On 15 March 2001 the court took statements by the parties and fixed a new hearing for 29 March after the applicant and his wife had left the courtroom. 13.  On 29 March 2001 the hearing was adjourned until 5 April as both parties failed to appear. 14.  On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer complained to the Stavropol Regional Court about the excessive length of proceedings in the applicant's case. On 4 April 2001 the Stavropol Regional Court replied that “a regional court cannot interfere with the proceedings pending before [lower] courts of the region”. 15.  On 5 April 2001 the court stayed the proceedings and ordered an expert examination of the commercial value of lost possessions. After both parties refused to pay for the examination, on 19 October 2001 the proceedings were resumed. 16.  On 24 October 2001 the Pyatigorsk Town Court gave its judgment. It ordered the defendants to pay the applicant and his wife compensation for damage to their property and non-pecuniary damage to their daughter. The court dismissed the applicant's request concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and his wife and for their loss of earnings. 17.  On 16 November 2001 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the judgment. The defendant company also appealed. 18.  On 19 December 2001 the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 October 2001 on procedural grounds and remitted the case for a new examination. On 3 January 2002 the case was assigned to a new judge. 19.  On 2 February 2002 the applicant's lawyer complained to the President of the Stavropol Regional Court that neither the applicant, nor himself had been given a copy of the judgment of 19 December 2001, which had allegedly impaired their ability to prepare their case before the first instance court. 20.  On 6 February 2002 the Pyatigorsk Town Court stayed the proceedings and ordered a third medical examination of the applicant's injured daughter. The applicant's lawyer submits that a copy of this decision has never been made available to him or to the applicant under various logistical pretexts (“the judge is too busy”; “there is no photocopying machine”; “the case-file is not bound”, etc.) 21.  On 27 May 2002 (on 27 June, according to the Government) the medical examination was completed. 22.  On 5 July 2002 (on 8 July, according to the Government) the Pyatigorsk Town Court resumed the proceedings and in the same hearing made a decision to stay the proceedings again and ordered a new forensic medico-social expert examination. The applicant submits that he objected to the examination; however, in the transcript of the hearing it was recorded that “the plaintiff leaves this matter for the court to decide”. 23.  On 14 October 2002 the examination was completed. On 21 October 2002 the proceedings were resumed. 24.  On 23 October 2002 the Pyatigorsk Town Court stayed the proceedings and on the defendants' motion ordered a new pyrotechnic expert examination. 25.  On 30 October 2003 the Pyatigorsk Town Court delivered a judgment in the applicant's favour. The defendant company lodged an appeal. 26.  On 14 January 2004 the Stavropol Regional Court, at the request of the applicant's representative, extended the time-limit for lodging an appeal. 27.  The appeal proceedings in the applicant's case are now pending.
Separate proceedings concerning compensation for damage 28.  On 31 August 2001 the applicant and his wife brought an action before the Pyatigorsk Town Court against the Federal Treasury of the Russian Federation for compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from unlawful court actions. The plaintiffs claimed that damage was caused by excessive delays in the examination of their case, the court's failure to properly prepare the case for examination, unjustified adjournments of the hearing and other procedural irregularities. 29.  On 13 September 2001 the Pyatigorsk Town Court disallowed the action citing the court's lack of territorial jurisdiction. 30.  On 17 October 2001 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 September 2001. The court pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the rules on territorial jurisdiction of courts, and they should have brought their action before a court in Moscow where the Federal Treasury was located. 31.  The applicant did not pursue these proceedings at that time because, on 24 October 2001, the Pyatigorsk Town Court gave its aforementioned judgment.