4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Tambov. 5.  In the 1980s he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As of late 1998 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection. 6.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Tambov Pension Authority (Управление социальной защиты населения мэрии города Тамбова, “the authority”) seeking to recover the amount of allegedly unpaid social benefits. 7.  By judgment of 19 June 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov (“the District Court”) examined and granted the applicant’s action and ordered the authority to pay him the arrears of RUR 10,890.73. 8.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 4 September 2000. It came into force on the same date. Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings. 9.  The amount due to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 19 June 2000 and decision of 4 September 2000 was not paid to him until February 2004, which is three years and seven months after the entry of the judgment into force. 10.  In 2001 the applicant brought another action against the authority, claiming damages for non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 June 2000. 11.  On 14 March 2001 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s claims. It ordered the authority to pay a half percent penalty fee for each day of the delay between September 2000 and March 2001, totalling at RUR 36,383.07. This judgment was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 26 March 2001. 12.  Thereafter the applicant submitted an execution writ in respect of the judgment of 14 March 2001 to the bailiffs. By letter of 15 December 2002 the bailiffs returned the documents and invited him to submit them to a local branch of the Federal Treasury. 13.  Upon the authority’s request, on 19 June 2003 the District Court corrected an arithmetical mistake in the judgment of 14 March 2001 by replacing the amount of award of RUR 36,383.07 with RUR 25,492.32. 14.  The judgment of 14 March 2001, as corrected by the decision of 19 June 2003, was enforced in full in February 2004, which is two years and eleven months later after its entry into force. 15.  On 28 May 2002 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s another claim for penalty, this time in connection with alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 2001. The court ordered the authority to pay the applicant a half percent penalty fee for each day of the delay between April 2001 and May 2002, totalling at RUR 20,858.98. 16.  The judgment of 28 May 2002 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 13 June 2002. 17.  By letter of 10 December 2002 the authority informed the applicant of receipt in June 2002 of an execution writ in respect of the judgment of 28 May 2002. The authority refused to pay the money due as the federal budget had allocated funds only as regards court decisions which had came into force prior to 1 January 2002. By the same letter the authority returned the writ and supporting documents to the applicant. 18.  Thereafter the applicant twice submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service which, by letter of 18 February and 4 March 2003, returned the documents and informed him that the documents ought to be submitted directly to the local branch of the Federal Treasury. 19.  On an unspecified date the authority brought an application seeking supervisory review of the judgment of 28 May 2002. A judge of the Regional Court on 17 June 2003 examined the application and decided to forward it for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Regional Court. 20.  By letter of 17 June 2003 the Regional Court notified the applicant of the supervisory review hearing of 26 June 2003. 21.  On 26 June 2003 Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 May 2002 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first instance. It appears that the applicant was absent from the hearing. 22.  By letter of 30 June 2003 the Regional Court informed the applicant of the outcome of the supervisory review hearing of 26 June 2003. 23.  According to the Government, on 16 July 2003 the first instance court discontinued the proceedings in the case for the applicant’s failure to appear. 24.  By default judgment of 3 July 2003 which came into force on 14 July 2003 the District Court ordered the authority to compensate the applicant for inflation losses in connection with the delays in enforcement of the judgment of 19 June 2000. The award of RUR 5,892.03 was to cover the period between September 2000 and June 2003. 25.  It was paid to the applicant in full six months later, in February 2004. 26.  On 12 February 2004 the applicant brought another action against the authority, claiming inflation compensation for the delay between 1 April 2001 and 31 December 2003 in enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 2001. 27.  By decision of 26 February 2004 the District Court granted his claims and awarded the applicant RUR 10,944.36 as a compensation for the inflation losses sustained by the applicant as a result of the said delay. 28.  This decision came into force on 9 March 2004. It is not clear from the case-file whether this judgment has been enforced.