4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the Tula Region. 5.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the clean-up of the Chernobyl nuclear accident site. As a consequence he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. 6.  On 19 March 1997 the applicant lodged an action against the Tula Regional military recruitment office (Тульский областной военный комиссариат) for compensation for health damage. 7.  On 30 September 1997 the Tula Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed the action. 8.  On 24 April 1998 the applicant requested the Tsentralniy District Court to re-open the proceedings on account of newly-discovered evidence and to award him compensation. 9.  The judge N. was assigned to the case and the first hearing was listed for 3 September 1998. 10.  Of the seven hearings listed between 3 September 1998 and 6 July 1999, two hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not attend and five hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings. 11.  On 28 July 1999 the Tsentralniy District Court awarded the applicant a certain amount in compensation for the health damage claimed. 12.  On 18 January 2000 the Tula Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Regional Court held that the District Court had examined the merits of the applicant’s action, without addressing the request for re-opening. Instead, it should have, first, examined the request for re-opening and then, if such a request was granted, it should have ruled on the merits of the action. 13.  On 9 March 2000 the Tsentralniy District Court issued a formal decision ordering re-opening of the proceedings and on 15 May 2000 it awarded the applicant partial compensation. 14.  The judgment of 15 May 2000 was quashed on appeal on 10 August 2000 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination. 15.  The Tsentralniy District Court received the case-file from the Regional Court on 23 October 2000. Three days later the applicant lodged an amended statement of claims. He subsequently amended his claims on two occasions. 16.  The hearing listed for 25 December 2000 was adjourned because the applicant could not attend. 17.  On 2 April 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part. 18.  On 7 June 2001 the Tula Regional Court adjourned the appellate proceedings because the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was to examine the legal provisions on which the applicant’s claims were based. 19.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained to the Tula Regional Judicial Qualification Board, the Tula Regional Court and the Judicial Department of the Tula Region about the excessive length of the proceedings. 20.  On 17 September 2002 the Tula Regional Court resumed the proceedings, quashed the judgment of 2 April 2001 and remitted the case for a new examination. 21.  On 6 November 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court received the case-file from the Regional Court and listed a hearing for 3 February 2003. 22.  Of the twenty hearings listed between 3 February 2003 and 18 April 2005, ten hearings were adjourned because the defendant could not attend and seven hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill or involved in other proceedings. 23.  On 25 April 2005 the applicant amended his claims and requested the District Court to stay the proceedings until the end of May 2005 because he was ill. The applicant provided the District Court with a medical certificate. 24.  On 19 August 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. 25.   The applicant was provided with a copy of that judgment on 4 October 2005. A week later he lodged a statement of appeal. 26.  The appeal proceedings are now pending.