6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Novosibirsk. She receives an old-age pension. 7.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual’s wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings. 8.  The applicant considered that the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had incorrectly calculated her pension and in March 1999 she sued the Fund for an increase of her pension in accordance with the Pensions Act. 9.  On 11 August 1999 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found in the applicant’s favour. The District Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicant’s pension should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 February 1998. On 16 September 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld that judgment. 10.  On 4 October 1999 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court issued a writ of execution and the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings. Two weeks later the District Court, upon the Fund’s request, stayed the enforcement proceedings because the Fund had lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 11 August 1999. The enforcement proceedings were resumed on 31 January 2000. However, the judgment of 11 August 1999 remained unenforced.  On 5 April 2000 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court again accepted the Fund’s request and adjourned the enforcement proceedings. 11.  In April 2000 the applicant lodged an action against the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Bailiffs’ Service, complaining about their inactivity. On 22 September 2000 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 12.  On 21 August 2000 the Fund requested the Zayeltsovskiy District Court to reopen the case owing to a newly discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed a complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry’s interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Instruction and the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 11 August 1999, the judgment would have to be reconsidered. 13.  On 12 January 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court granted the Fund’s request, quashed the judgment of 11 August 1999 and reopened the proceedings. The District Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and could not have been, known to the party concerned. The District Court found that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 April 2000 could serve as such a circumstance. The decision of 12 January 2001 was final and not amenable to appeal. 14.  On 23 January 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court, after the fresh examination of the case, dismissed the applicant’s action in full. On 5 April 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.