5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Raduzhnyy, Moscow Region. 6.  In the morning of 31 July 2001 Mr E., armed with a machine gun and explosives, took passengers in a bus hostage in the Stavropol Region. The applicant was amongst the hostages. In the evening of that day police forces stormed the bus, killed Mr E. and liberated the hostages. However, during the storming Mr E. detonated a hand grenade and the applicant was injured. He was admitted to a local hospital. The next day, after having received medical assistance, he was discharged. During the criminal investigation into the hostage taking the applicant was granted the status of a victim of the crime. 7.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant sued the Government of the Stavropol Region seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the terrorist attack. The applicant relied on Section 17 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act, according to which regional authorities should compensate damage caused by a terrorist attack committed on their territory. 8.  On 15 December 2003 the Kolomenskiy District Court of the Moscow Region granted the applicant's claims in part. The Government of the Stavropol Region appealed. They did not deny that the applicant had suffered as a result of a terrorist attack. However, in their view the law did not provide for strict liability on the part of the regional authorities for non-pecuniary damage caused by a third party, which in the applicant's case had resulted from the actions of Mr E. 9.  On 16 February 2004 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 10.  At a preliminary hearing on 28 April 2004 the Kolomenskiy District Court of the Moscow Region decided to transfer the case to the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol pursuant to the rules of jurisdiction. 11.  On 9 August 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol rejected the applicant's claim in his absence. The applicant appealed. 12.  In November 2004 the applicant learned that on 27 October 2004 the Stavropol Regional Court had held a hearing in his absence and rejected his appeal. The applicant received a copy of the decision of 27 October 2004 in December 2004. 13.  The applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to institute supervisory review proceedings in his case. On 27 November 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court finally accepted the applicant's request for supervisory review. 14.  On 18 December 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 August 2004 and the decision of 27 October 2004 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 15.  On 28 May 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol held a hearing in the applicant's absence. Having examined the evidence presented by the parties the court rejected the applicant's claims. The relevant extracts from the District Court's judgment read as follows:
“The applicant did not appear at the hearing. He was duly notified about the date and the place of the hearing. He asked the court to examine the case in his absence on the basis of the materials submitted [by him]. ...
The court has established that [the applicant] has never received any compensation from the regional authority or any other authority. This was confirmed by [the applicant]. He does not raise any claim with respect to pecuniary damage. He seeks to recover non-pecuniary damage. ...
From the law cited above it follows that a person who did not cause the damage can be required to compensate the damage only when it is clearly indicated in the law. ...
In accordance with Sections 17 and 18 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act, damage caused by a terrorist act should be compensated for by the authorities of the federal constituency where the attack took place. However, there is no indication in the law about possible compensation for non-pecuniary damage by regional authorities. ...
Moreover, there is no legal basis in the budgets of the regional authorities for the allocation of funds to compensation for non-pecuniary damage. ...
It was not the Stavropol Region authorities' fault that [the applicant] sustained damage. From the case materials it follows that the damage was caused to [the applicant] by Mr E., who had taken people hostage in the bus ... on 31 July 2001. ...
The authorities of the Stavropol Region fulfilled their obligations: they provided assistance for the release of the hostages and identified victims. The claimant was transported to the Central District Hospital of Mineralniye Vody where he received the necessary medical care. ...
Section 17 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act does not provide for an obligation on the part of regional authorities to compensate non-pecuniary damage. Thus, there is no legal basis for compensation of non-pecuniary damage by the Stavropol Regional authority. ....
The court accepts the claimant's allegation that he sustained non-pecuniary damage. However, he failed to submit any evidence that such damage had been caused by fault on the part of the respondent. ...
 In these circumstances, on the basis of established jurisprudence the court finds that there are no legal grounds for granting [the applicant's] claims. ...” 16.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, alleging an incorrect interpretation of the domestic law by the first-instance court. It appears that the applicant did not ask the court of appeal to re-examine the evidence in the case-file or to admit new evidence. 17.  On 22 August 2007 the applicant received a summons for the appeal hearing, which was scheduled at the Stavropol Regional Court on that very date. As a result he was unable to attend it. The appeal court held a hearing in the absence of both parties to the dispute. 18.  Following the hearing in the absence of both parties the appeal court rejected the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 28 May 2007. The relevant parts of the appeal court's judgment read as follows:
“In his appeal brief, the claimant seeks to have the judgement quashed due to the incorrect interpretation of the domestic law by the first-instance court. Having examined the case file and the appeal brief, the appeal court finds that the first-instance court's judgment was correct.
In the interests of legality, the court of appeal will review the judgment of the first-instance court in full, as provided for by [the relevant provisions of the CCP].
The first-instance court rejected [the applicant's] claims because the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998 did not provide for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Section 18 of the new Counter-Terrorist Act, which entered into force from 1 January 2007 and replaced the Suppression of Terrorism Act, provides that non-pecuniary damage caused by a terrorist attack shall be compensated for by the individuals who committed that attack.
The (first-instance) court's conclusions are based on a complete and objective assessment of the evidence and on an application of the relevant material law ...
The court correctly found that the terrorist attack caused [the applicant] non-pecuniary damage ... However, [the applicant] did not prove that the damage was caused by the defendant. ...”
The Regional Court further analysed relevant legislation and the case-law of the Supreme Court and of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on non-pecuniary damage. The Regional Court noted that strict liability on the part of the State can be relied upon only in the cases specifically described by law. Although Sections 17 and 18 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act provided that damage caused by a terrorist attack should be compensated for by the authorities, the Act did not explicitly mention non-pecuniary damage. Therefore, non-pecuniary damage was not covered by that Act. The applicant suffered damage as a result of the terrorist attack itself, and not because of the actions of the authorities. The authorities, on the contrary, had done everything possible to free the hostages and to provide medical assistance to them. In such circumstances, the court held that non-pecuniary damage should be compensated for by the wrongdoer (i.e. the terrorist), in accordance with the general provisions of tort law, and not by the State. 19.  On 19 August 2008 the Stavropol Regional Court rejected the applicant's request to reopen the case by way of supervisory review due to non-compliance with the relevant time-limits.