4.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1980 respectively and live in Moscow. 5.  The first applicant is the second applicant's mother. On 19 September 1991, she filed a court action on behalf of her son against the second applicant's schoolmate claiming damages for battery. 6.  On 24 October 1991 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court (“the District Court”) initiated proceedings in this connection. 7.  On 27 February 1998 the District Court examined her action and partly granted it. The court ordered the defendants jointly to pay RUR 1,500. 8.  Unhappy with the amount of award, the first applicant appealed against the judgment of 27 February 1998 to the City Court on 27 February 1998. 9.  On 10 June 1998 the first applicant filed supplementary appeal arguments. In June 1998 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 27 February 1998 and remitted the case to the first instance court for a fresh examination. 10.  The first applicant submits that from September 1998 to February 2000 the hearings in her case were rare, mostly due to the unavailability of judges, and that each time they took place the District Court failed properly to notify her. 11.  According to the Government, on 10 July 1998 the case was transmitted to a judge of the District Court who scheduled the hearing for 15 September 1998. This hearing was adjourned due to the judge's illness until 27 October 1998. The case was adjourned due to the judge's involvement in a different set of proceedings on 29 December 1998, 29 January 1999 and 24 March 1999. 12.  On the latter date the first applicant requested a forensic examination to be carried out. The request was granted and the hearing scheduled for 14 May 1999. 13.  Thereafter the case was adjourned repeatedly due to the judge's involvement in other proceedings, in particular on 20 July, 12 October 1999 and 12 January 2000. 14.  It appears that on an unspecified date the second applicant attained his majority and by decision of 4 February 2000 the first applicant was replaced in the proceedings by the second applicant. Due to one of the defendant's absence, the case was adjourned until 2 March 2000. 15.  On 2 March 2000 the District Court ordered another forensic examination and suspended the proceedings accordingly. 16.  By decision of 9 June 2000, upon the second applicant's motion, the District Court amended the list of question put before the expert body and on 5 July 2000 the case-file was transferred to the expert body. 17.  On 2 April 2001 the proceedings resumed and the hearing was scheduled for 16 April 2001. 18.  On 16 April 2001 the District Court examined the case on the merits and ordered the second applicant's school to pay non-pecuniary damages of RUR 10,000 to the second applicant as well as to cover his dental prosthesis expenses. 19.  The parties appealed against this judgment but some time later the applicants retracted their appeal. 20.  According to the applicants, the first instance judge erred in fixing the amount of stamp duty in the appeal proceedings for one of the defendants and it took the judicial authorities several months (between June and October 2001) to rectify this mistake. 21.  The Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 16 April 2001 on appeal on 14 November 2001. 22.  The judgment of 16 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 14 November 2001, was enforced in full on 6 June 2002.