4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Poltava, Ukraine. 5.  By judgment of 1 February 1999 the Kyivsky District Court of Poltava (hereafter “the District Court”) ordered U., a private company, to reinstate the applicant at work and pay him salary arrears in the amount of 1,916.20 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about 425.95 euros). This judgment remained unenforced. 6.  On an unspecified date the debtor company had undergone a reorganisation, changing, inter alia, its name from U. to K. 7.  In view of that fact, on 28 May 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the same court, seeking a declaration that K. had succeeded U. In this regard he also claimed salary arrears in the sum of UAH 1,916.20 (which corresponded to the amount already awarded to him by judgment of 1 February 1999) and other payments allegedly owed to him by K. company. 8.  The first hearing was scheduled on 20 September 2001. It was adjourned since the case was transferred to another judge. 9.  Between 21 September 2001 and 20 December 2002 the District Court scheduled six hearings, two of them were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear. On two other occasions the hearings were adjourned since the both parties failed to appear. One hearing was adjourned at the applicant's request, and one since the judge was involved in other proceedings. 10.  In the period from 21 December 2002 and 19 May 2003 there was no procedural activity. 11.  Between 20 May 2003 and 17 February 2004 the District Court scheduled three hearings, two of them were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear and one because the judge was ill. 12.  The hearings scheduled for 18 February and 8 April 2004 were not held as neither of the parties appeared before the District Court. For this reason, on the latter date the District left the applicant's claim without consideration. On 24 February 2005 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, ruling on the applicant's appeal, found that the applicant had not been properly summoned and, accordingly, quashed the decision of 8 April 2004 and remitted the case for further examination on the merits. 13.  On 26 August 2004 the Poltava Commercial Court liquidated K. company and the latter was subsequently removed from the relevant companies' register. 14.  Between March 2005 and July 2005 the District Court scheduled two hearings. The both were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear. 15.  On 30 May 2005 the District Court asked the Poltava Tax Inspectorate to provide it with information about the company. On 15 June 2005 the latter informed the District Court that the company had been liquidated. 16.  In July 2005, after the applicant had learned that K. company had ceased to exist, he requested the District Court to terminate the proceedings. Accordingly, on 27 July 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.