5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Moscow. 6.  In 1995 the applicant deposited his money with the Savings Bank of Russia (Sberbank). Subsequently, the Savings Bank unilaterally reduced the interest rate on his deposit. The applicant sued the Savings Bank for the damages incurred through the unilateral modification of the interest rate. 7.  On 10 March 1998 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 26 May 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment. 8.  On 10 June 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 10 March and 26 May 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the claim for fresh consideration. The Presidium's decision was set aside by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 16 November 1999. However, on 9 December 1999 the City Court's Presidium re-examined the supervisory-review application, quashed the earlier judgments and ordered a new examination of the applicant's claim. 9.  On 17 October 2000 the Tverskoy District Court granted a small portion of the applicant's claims to the amount of 386,63 Russian roubles and rejected the remainder. On 27 October 2000 the District Court adopted a supplementary judgment, by which it declared the deposit agreement, in relation to the right of the Savings Bank to change unilaterally the interest rate, invalid. On 16 February 2001 the Moscow City Court rejected an appeal by the applicant. 10.  The applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages incurred through the inappropriate administration of justice, and notably the excessive length of proceedings in respect of his claim against the Savings Bank. 11.  On 23 July 2001 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claim. Referring to the Constitutional Court's Ruling of 25 January 2001 (see paragraph 16 below), the District Court noted that Parliament had not yet adopted a law determining jurisdiction over claims concerning State liability for the damage caused by a court's or judge's failure to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time, and dismissed the claim in the following terms:
“According to Article 1 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure, the rules of civil procedure in federal courts of general jurisdiction are determined by the Russian Constitution, the Judicial System Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and other federal laws.
The law has not determined the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation of damages incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute has not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts (or failures to act) of a court (a judge), including the breach of a reasonable-time guarantee.
The court must dismiss the statement of claim if there are grounds listed in Article 129 (1) and (7) of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure, that is if the claim may not be examined in civil proceedings and if the court is not competent to examine the claim.” 12.  On 20 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision to dismiss the applicant's claim, finding as follows:
“In dismissing the claim, the judge correctly stated that the law had not determined the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation of damages incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute had not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts (or failures to act) of a court (a judge), including the breach of a reasonable-time guarantee.
Under these circumstances, the [City Court] finds no grounds for quashing that decision. Since the judge reached the conclusion that the claim may not be examined in civil proceedings, the reference to Article 129 (7) of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure must be deleted [as being superfluous]”. 13.  On 5 May 2003 and 4 February 2004 the Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, respectively, refused the applicant's requests for the institution of supervisory-review proceedings.