4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Kremenchuk. 5.   On 15 December 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position at the Instrumentalnyy Zavod Company (hereafter the “Company”). 6.  On 16 February 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking his reinstatement and compensation for the loss of salary. 7.  On 4 June 1999 the Kryukivsky District Court of Kremenchuk (hereafter “the District Court”) rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. 8.  On 5 August 1999 the Poltava Regional Court (hereafter “the Regional Court”) upheld this judgment. 9.  On 10 February 2000, at the applicant's request, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged with the Regional Court a protest against these decisions. 10.  On 29 February 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the decisions of 4 June 1999 and 5 August 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It indicated that the courts had failed to establish all relevant facts, particularly concerning the applicant's productivity and qualifications. 11.  On 24 October 2000 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. 12.  On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration stating that the first instance court had failed to give appropriate consideration to the issue of the applicant's qualifications. 13.  On 19 November 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. 14.  On 31 January 2002 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (the former Poltava Regional Court, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed this decision and ordered a fresh consideration on the ground that the first instance court's reasoning was insufficient. 15.  On 15 July 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. 16.  On 5 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim as being out of time. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.