5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, a town in the Rostov Region. He is a retired military officer. 6.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the Military Service Commissariat of Novocherkassk (Военный комиссариат г. Новочеркасска – “the Commissariat”) seeking to recover his pension arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 to take account of the increase of the minimum monthly wage. 7.  On 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him 261,343.87 roubles (RUB) in arrears. On the applicant’s request the court held that the judgment should be enforced immediately since it concerned the applicant’s main source of income and was of considerable importance for the applicant’s financial situation. The Commissariat did not appeal against the judgment and on 25 September 2004 it became final. 8.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant’s representative submitted the copy of the judgment and the writ of execution to the Social Welfare Office of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region. 9.  On 24 February 2005 the enforcement proceedings were opened. In the same month the applicant was informed that the sums awarded to him could not be paid as the Commissariat was conducting an examination of his case. 10.  On 19 September 2005 the Commissariat filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of the Novocherkassk Town Court of 15 September 2004, referring to the lack of grounds in domestic law for increasing the applicant’s pension, and asked for a stay of enforcement. 11.  On 9 December 2005 the Rostov Regional Court examined the above application and remitted the case for examination on its merits by the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court. 12.  On 22 December 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 September 2004 and remitted the case to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for a fresh consideration. It concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and that the matter should have been examined by a district court rather than by a town court. 13.  On 20 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant’s claim.