4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Saratov. 5.  The applicant was employed by a municipal company (the “company”). After his dismissal, the company issued a certificate indicating the applicant’s average monthly salary (the “certificate”). On the basis of that certificate, the local Social Security Committee calculated his disability allowance (пенсия по инвалидности). 6.  The applicant considered that this certificate had to be amended to take account of the pay he had received in 1998 as a juror. His company refused to amend the certificate. 7.  In April 1999 the applicant sued the company and the local Social Security Committee. He sought amendment of the certificate, payment of the allowance arrears accrued in 1999 and compensation in the amount of an average monthly salary for a delayed return of his employment record (трудовая книжка). It appears that he subsequently amended his claims and asked the court to order that the amended certificate should also mention amounts awarded to him under judgments dated 17 June 1999 and 19 January 2000. According to the applicant, he submitted a copy of the above judgments to the District Court on an unspecified date. 8.  By judgment of 23 March 2000, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov ordered the company to provide the Social Security Committee with the amended certificate indicating the pay received by the applicant in 1998 as a juror. By the same judgment, the District Court ordered the Committee to re-calculate the applicant’s allowance. The District Court rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claims as follows:
“...the claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage should be rejected because no proof of such damage has been adduced...” 9.  On the same date, the applicant asked the District Court to issue an additional judgment under Article 205 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 27 below). He considered that the District Court had omitted to list in the amended certificate the amounts awarded to him under the above-mentioned judgments of 17 June 1999 and 19 January 2000. This request was not accompanied by a copy of those judgments. It appears that this request was lost by one of the District Court’s employees. 10.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant also asked the District Court to rule on his earlier claim for compensation for the delayed return of his employment record. 11.  In reply to the applicant’s complaint, by letter dated 13 November 2001 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the case file contained no request for an additional judgment; no decision on such request had been taken. 12.  On 27 November 2001 the District Court fixed a new time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 23 March 2000, having regard to the fact that between March 2000 and September 2001 the applicant had been in a mental institution. 13.  On 27 December 2001 the Saratov Regional Court amended the judgment of 23 March 2000 on appeal, indicating that the adjustment would be effective from 29 March 1999. As regards the applicant’s claim for compensation, the Regional Court held as follows:
“...the court upholds the judgment as regards the claim ... [relating to] the retention of the employment record because there had been no proof that the Social Security Committee had unlawfully retained it or that any damage had been caused to the applicant...
There is no proof that the administration of the municipal company unlawfully retained the applicant’s employment record.” 14.  The applicant instituted proceedings against the President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court and its registry in relation to the failure to examine his above requests for an additional judgment. On 14 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court confirmed that the request of 23 March 2000 had been received by the registry but had apparently been lost. The District Court discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. 15.  On 22 July 2004 the bailiffs’ service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 23 March 2000, as amended by the Regional Court on 27 December 2001. 16.  According to the Government, on several occasions the bailiff invited the company’s insolvency manager to enforce the judgment. 17.  On 28 April 2005 the company issued the amended certificate. On 29 April 2005 the Pensions Department re-calculated the applicant’s allowance. 18.  It appears that on 24 May 2005 the applicant received 771.96 Russian roubles (RUB) in allowance arrears for the period from 29 March 1999 to 31 July 2001. 19.  In 2000 the applicant sued the Regional Social Insurance Fund in the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov. He sought to obtain from the Fund “compensation for suffering and disability which had been allegedly caused by the Fund’s refusal to provide him with New Year gifts” and “a sample of urine”. 20.  It appears that on 13 March 2001 the District Court sent a notification to the applicant that a hearing had been listed at 9.30 a.m. on 15 March 2001. The applicant received this notification on 15 March 2001. On that date the District Court refused to process the case because the applicant had not appeared or asked for a default judgment to be issued. 21.  On 19 March 2001 the District Court found that the applicant had been apprised of the hearing date but chose not to attend it. Having heard the respondent, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims. On 26 March 2001 a copy of the judgment was sent to the applicant’s address. The judgment became final on 30 March 2001. 22.  It appears that the applicant appealed against the decision of 15 March 2001. The outcome of those proceedings remains unclear. 23.  The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of 19 March 2001 and it became final on 30 March 2001. 24.  The applicant sued several judges who had allegedly issued wrong decisions in his civil cases or had failed to examine his complaints. On 1 November 2000 and 27 June 2001 the Saratov Regional Court took the final decisions dismissing his complaints on procedural grounds. On 19 April 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court rejected his further complaints as unfounded. 25.  The applicant also sued the mental hospital of Saratov. On 8 October 2003 the Regional Court took the final decision rejecting his complaint on procedural grounds. 26.  Finally, the applicant sued his former employer, a private company, for damages. On 12 January 2005 the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,000 against his former employer.