4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the Leningard region. 5.  In 2005 the applicant brought a court action against a bank for its refusal to refund the capital placed on a savings account together with interest and appointed B. to represent him in those proceedings. 6.  The Podporozhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region (“the Town Court”) set the case down for trial on 13 December 2005. The applicant alleges that in the beginning of the hearing his representative received the observations and documents filed by the defendant. He complains that the Town Court allowed his representative to read those observations during several minutes which were not enough to prepare his comments on them. 7.  On 13 December 2005 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. 8.  On 20 December 2005 the applicant and his representative lodged an appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005. 9.  On 2 February 2006 the Regional Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s and his representative’s appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005. Neither the applicant nor his representative were present at the hearing whereas the defendant’s representative was present and made submissions. It does not appear from the decision of 2 February 2006 that the appeal court verified whether the applicant and his representative had been duly apprised of the hearing and, if they had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned. The applicant alleges that he and his representative B. were not apprised of the appeal hearing. 10.  By a letter of 6 March 2006 the Town Court informed the applicant that on 2 February 2006 the Regional Court had examined and dismissed his appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005. 11.  On 10 March 2006 the applicant’s representative complained to the Town Court that he had not been apprised of the appeal hearing of 2 February 2006. In particular, he claimed that in the materials of the case he had found a notification letter of 11 January 2006 addressed to him. However, there had been no documents confirming that that letter had been dispatched to him. 12.  On 15 March 2006 the Town Court replied that on 12 January 2006 it had sent to the applicant and his representative notifications about the appeal hearing of 2 February 2006. The Town Court further explained that such letters were normally sent by ordinary mail without acknowledgment of receipt and that the post office was responsible for their delivery. The Town Court advised the applicant’s representative to complain about the failure to deliver the letters of 12 January 2006 to the post office. 13.  The applicant submitted that he had applied for a supervisory review of the decision of 2 February 2006, but the supervisory review court refused to examine his complaint on procedural grounds.