4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow. 5.  According to the applicant, on 27 April 2000 he brought proceedings before the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage against a municipal maintenance enterprise. According to him, the enterprise should have repaired the bathroom or plumbing equipment on upper floors of the building in which he was living. As can be seen from a copy of his statement of claim, submitted to the Court, this statement had a handwritten inscription “lodged on 27 April 2000 [unreadable signature]”. According to the Government the claim was lodged and assigned to a judge on 3 May 2001. 6.  On 16 August 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings considering that there had already been a final judgment in the same matter issued on 2 July 2001. On 6 September 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the above decision and remitted the case to the District Court. The City Court considered that it had not been properly established by the first-instance court that the above cases concerned the same subject-matter. 7.  On 21 September 2001 the case was assigned to a professional judge sitting with lay judges. Eight hearings were scheduled and adjourned between October 2001 and February 2002 on account of the lay judges’ failure to attend hearings. On 12 and 27 February 2002 the court requested a local hospital to provide information on the applicant’s state of health. Further six hearings were adjourned to collect evidence and summon witnesses. Two hearings were adjourned because the applicant defaulted. 8.  By a judgment of 1 August 2002, the District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed. On 22 January 2003 the City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. The City Court considered that the District Court had misinterpreted the subject-matter of the applicant’s claims. 9.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to examine the case in his absence. The court granted this request. On 18 July 2003 the District Court discontinued the case referring to the applicant’s failure to attend hearings. On 26 August 2003 the City Court quashed the decision and required the District Court to examine the case. According to the Government, on an unspecified date the District Court issued a notice that the applicant’s presence at the hearings had been indispensable. 10.  By a decision of 29 December 2003 the District Court again discontinued the case on grounds of the applicant’s failure to attend an unspecified number of hearings. The text of the decision indicated that “the plaintiff could challenge this decision by applying to a court within ten days”. Considering that this decision was amenable to appeal to a higher court, on 16 January 2004 the applicant appealed to the City Court alleging that the discontinuation had been unlawful. According to the Government, on an unspecified date, the City or District Court returned the appeal to the applicant and informed him of his right to challenge the decision not to examine the case before the same District Court. 11.  In March 2004 the applicant complained to the President of the City Court that his appeal had not been examined. This complaint was forwarded to the District Court. No reply was received. 12.  On 2 October 2006 the applicant sought an extension of the time-limit for his appeal. He also explained that he had waived his right to be present at hearings listed in late 2003 and thus had not attended any of those hearings. On 12 October 2006 the District Court granted his request and quashed the decision of 29 December 2003. The court noted that the above decision did not contain sufficient detail as to the procedure for appeal. It also observed that the applicant had waived his right to be present at hearings in 2003 and that no decision had been taken in order to recognise his personal presence at those hearings indispensable for the proper conduct of the proceedings. 13.  By judgment of 18 October 2006, the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,000. Having heard the parties, on 9 November 2006 the City Court upheld the judgment.