5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Moscow. 6.  The applicant’s father owned a flat in Moscow. In June 1993, a certain K., acting on behalf of the applicant’s father, sold the flat to L. In October 1993 the applicant’s father died. Later, L. made a gift of that flat to her son. 7.  In February 1995 the applicant lodged a court action with the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) against K. and L. and L.’s son, seeking annulment of the contract of sale of his father’s flat. The Moscow department of housing policy, the registration service and the notary who had certified the power of authority delivered by the applicant’s father were invited as third parties to the proceedings. 8.  Between 1995 and 1997 several hearings were listed, but they were adjourned for various reasons. In 1998 the examination of the case was postponed several times because the third parties or the defendants failed to appear. According to the Government, the hearing of 23 December was adjourned until 29 December because the applicant failed to appear. 9.  On 29 December 1998 the District Court adjourned the applicant’s action generally on the grounds that the parties had failed to attend two court hearings. The applicant applied for reinstatement of the case on the grounds that he had not been duly summoned to the hearings. On 20 January 1999 the District Court quashed the decision of 29 December 1998, having found that the applicant had had a valid reason for failing to appear. It reinstated the case and scheduled the hearing for 23 March 1999. 10.  In 1999 several hearings were adjourned for various reasons. On 26 May the case was adjourned until 14 July because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. According to the Government, the hearings of 30 November and 10 December did not take place because the applicant did not attend them. 11.  In 2000 the hearings were postponed several times because the defendants or the third parties failed to appear. 12.  On 13 March 2001 the applicant amended his claims. On the same date the District Court appointed, at his request, an expert examination of the power of authority signed by his father and suspended the proceedings pending the expert study. 13.  On 4 June 2001 the proceedings were resumed and the hearing was fixed for 20 July 2001. On that date, according to the Government, the hearing did not take place because the applicant did not appear. 14.  At the hearing of 5 September 2001 the applicant rejected the expert study and returned to his initial claims. On the same date the District Court dismissed his claims in full. On 22 February 2002 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) quashed that judgment, finding that the first-instance court had failed to establish all relevant facts of the case. It remitted the case for a fresh examination to a different panel of the first-instance court. 15.  In the second round of proceedings, the District Court accepted the case for examination on 26 September 2002. The first hearing was fixed for 15 November 2002. On that date the hearing was adjourned until 10 January 2003 because the parties failed to appear. 16.  In 2003 six hearings were scheduled. Of these, the hearing of 6 August was adjourned until 29 October because the parties did not appear. However, on that date the defendants did not appear and the case was postponed until 20 January 2004. 17.  In 2004 eight hearings were listed. Of these, at least five hearings were adjourned because the defendants failed to appear. On 30 June the court heard the parties and adjourned the case until 10 August at the applicant’s request. On that date the applicant amended his claims. This time he requested that the defendants be evicted from the flat in question. 18.  On 1 October 2004 the District Court adjourned the case generally on the grounds that the parties failed to appear at the hearings. On 5 October 2004 the District Court quashed that decision, having found that the applicant had received a delayed notification about the hearing. It reinstated the proceedings and fixed the hearing for 22 October 2004. 19.  In 2005 three hearings were listed. The hearings of 28 January and 1 March were adjourned because the defendants failed to appear and because the judge was on leave. 20.  On 22 April 2005 the District Court examined the case in the absence of the defendants and dismissed the applicant’s action. Both the applicant and his representative were present. The applicant appealed against that judgment. 21.  The applicant submitted that on the morning of 5 July 2005 his mother had received a summons from the City Court. It said that the appeal hearing had been listed for 5 July 2005. By that time the applicant had already gone to work. 22.  On 5 July 2005 the City Court heard the case in the absence of the defendants and the applicant. The applicant’s grandmother, acting on his behalf, maintained his claims. On the same date the City Court upheld the judgment of 22 April 2005.