5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer. 6.  In 2001 he brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы – “the Commission”) for recalculation of his pension in view of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension. 7.  On 12 March 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's claim and adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.4 as from 17 September 2001. 8.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment, and it became binding and enforceable on 22 March 2002. 9.  On 3 November 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant. 10.  On 19 May 2004 the applicant received notification of the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure. 11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 12 March 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received the final decision on 4 August 2004. 12.  The applicant sought to initiate the supervisory review of the decision of 20 May 2004, but on 25 August 2004 his request was dismissed. 13.  The new hearing of the case was scheduled for 13 August 2004. Since the applicant was outside of Moscow and could not attend it, his representative asked the court to postpone the hearing until 5 September 2004. However, the court did not reply to this request. 14.  On 1 September 2004 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow left the applicant's action without consideration for his failure to appear twice before the court. The applicant was never served with the above decision.