4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Boryspil, the Kyiv Region. 5.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant lodged with the Inter-Regional Court a claim against his former employer for recovery of salary arrears and salary‑related payments. 6.  On 6 December 1999 the court dismissed the applicant’s claims as lodged out of time. The applicant appealed in cassation. 7.  On 12 January 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 6 December 1999 and remitted the case for new consideration, having found that the lower court had incorrectly applied the law. 8.  On 14 November 2000 the Inter-Regional Court allowed in part the applicant’s claims. 9.  On 14 December 2000 the same court, following the applicant’s request, quashed the judgment of 14 November 2000 in view of the newly discovered circumstances. 10.  On 31 May 2001 the court allowed in part the applicant’s claims. He appealed in cassation. On 21 November 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 31 May 2001 and remitted the case for new consideration to the Inter-Regional Court. 11.  On 20 December 2001 the Supreme Court sent the applicant’s case for examination to the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv. 12.  On 17 May 2002 the latter court allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The applicant appealed against that judgment. 13.  On 19 August 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 May 2002 for the first-instance court’s failure to examine all the circumstances of the case and remitted the case for new consideration. 14.  On 28 February 2003 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv suspended the proceedings in view of the applicant’s health problems preventing him from participating in the hearings. 15.  On 7 May 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, on the appeal lodged by the applicant’s representative, quashed the ruling of 28 February 2003 and sent the case to the first-instance court for further examination. 16.  On 4 August 2003 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv allowed the applicant’s claims. It ordered his reinstatement at his previous post and awarded him 34,472.11 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears, salary‑related payments and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 17.  On 25 November 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 4 August 2003 because of the failure of the first-instance to examine all the circumstances of the case and the parties’ submissions and remitted the case for re-consideration. 18.  On 21 June 2004 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv dismissed the applicant’s claims for reinstatement as lodged out of time, allowed in part his claims for recovery of salary arrears and salary-related payments awarding him UAH 732.08[2], and rejected the remainder of his claims. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 19.  On 1 October 2004 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 21 June 2004. On 28 October 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. 20.  On 18 December 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and upheld the decisions of 21 June and 1 October 2004. 21.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant supplemented his claims, in particular by lodging a claim for reinstatement, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and indexation of the payments claimed on 12 April and 13 December 2000, 25 January 2001 and 23 March 2002. On 22 April 1999 and 28 February 2002 he unsuccessfully requested withdrawal of the judge from his case. The applicant failed to appear before the court twice, requested the court to adjourn the hearings on two occasions and lodged several requests for obtaining copies of several documents pertinent to the case. The respondent party failed to appear before the courts five times.