5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Kaliningrad. 6.  In 2000 the applicant was convicted of extortion and aggravated murder and sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment. On 12 October 2000 he was transferred to a correctional colony in the Kaliningrad Region to serve his sentence. 7.  On 1 July 2002 the applicant sued the investigator for compensation, claiming that he had been ill-treated to make him confess. In his statement of claim he alleged that on 17 March 1999 the investigator had beaten him and injured his lips, forehead and ears. The investigator had also threatened to kill him. After he had confessed to the murder, he had been placed in a detention facility. He had applied for medical assistance, which had been refused. On 23 March 1999 he had been questioned and the questioning had been videotaped. In his statement of claim he asked the court to watch the videotape, in which it could be seen that his lips were cut. He also asked the court to hear his counsel, Ms V., who had seen marks of beatings on his face. He finally indicated that he wanted to give oral submissions and requested to be brought to the hearing. 8.  On 25 September 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad rejected the applicant’s requests to be brought to the hearing and to summon Ms V. It stated that domestic law did not give a detainee the right to be brought to a hearing in a civil case. Referring to legal professional privilege, it held that Ms V. could not be questioned about the information that had become known to her in the performance of her duties as counsel. It further requested the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region to make available the video record of the applicant’s questioning. 9.  On 29 October 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region informed the court that the record of the questioning had been erased as unnecessary. 10.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region and the local department of the Ministry of Finance made written submissions in support of the respondent. 11.  On 14 November 2002 the applicant repeated his request to attend the hearing. On 20 November 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court rejected his request, giving the same reasons as before. It added that the applicant was entitled to appoint a representative. 12.  On 10 December 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court heard the investigator, who denied beating the applicant. The applicant was not brought to the hearing. 13.  On the same day the Leningradskiy District Court gave its judgment. It rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation as unsubstantiated. 14.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant received the decision of 20 November 2002 and a notification stating that the hearing before the Leningradskiy District Court was scheduled for 10 December 2002. On the same day the applicant complained to the District Court about the belated notification. He also submitted that he did not have a representative and that his personal attendance was important because his claim was based on his personal experience. He asked that a new hearing be scheduled and that he be brought to that hearing. 15.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant received a copy of the judgment of 10 December 2002. In his appeal submissions he complained, in particular, that he had not been brought to the hearing, and about the court’s refusal to summon Ms V. He further complained that, despite his many requests, he had had no opportunity to study the materials submitted by the respondent, or to comment on them. 16.  On 29 January 2003 the applicant received the transcript of the hearing of 10 December 2002 and copies of written submissions by the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region and the local department of the Ministry of Finance. 17.  On 4 March 2003 the applicant received the remaining materials from the case file. 18.  On 12 March 2003 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant was not brought to the appeal hearing. 19.  On an unspecified date the administration of the applicant’s correctional colony applied to a court, asking it to order the applicant’s transfer to prison for three years. 20.  On 10 April 2002 the Bagrationovskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region granted the request. It held that the applicant had often disrupted the colony regime or infringed colony regulations, and had frequently been placed in a punishment or solitary cell. It concluded from this that the applicant was of an unruly character and was a bad influence on the other inmates. 21.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to prison. 22.  On 10 September 2002 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the decision on appeal as having no basis in domestic law. 23.  On 8 October 2002 the applicant was transported back to the colony. 24.  On 27 January 2003 the applicant sued the judge who had ordered his transfer to prison and the Kaliningrad Regional Department of the Ministry of Finance for compensation. He claimed that the judge had unlawfully ordered his transfer to prison and that her unlawful decision had caused him mental suffering for which he should be compensated by the Ministry of Finance. 25.  On 9 April 2003 the Kaliningrad Regional Court declared the claim inadmissible in the final instance. It held that Article 1070 of the Civil Code, which provided for compensation for damage caused by unlawful judicial decisions, contained an exhaustive list of cases in which such compensation could be paid. The applicant’s situation did not fall within the cases specified.