5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and resides in the village of Akimovka, the Zaporizhzhya region, Ukraine. 6.  In December 1998 the applicant was dismissed from the military forces. 7.  On 8 June 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Garrison Military Court (“the Zaporizhzhya Court”) ordered the Zaporizhzhya Regional Military Enlistment Office to pay the applicant 1,260.91 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) for his uniform expenses for the period up to 31 December 1998. 8.  On 11 February 2000 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued because of the debtor’s lack of funds and because, according to Article 5 of the Economic Activities of the Armed Forces Act, the property of the Armed Forces could not be used to enforce a court decision. 9.  According to the applicant, on 16 October 2001 the decision was enforced in part by the debtor. At 21 August 2007 the decision had not been enforced in full. 10.  In June 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaporizhzhya Court against his former employer, the Akimovskiy District Military Enlistment Office, claiming an allowance due to him for the period of January-February 1999. The applicant stated that though he was officially dismissed on 31 December 1998, he had actually left the forces on 16 February 1999. 11.  On 23 June 1999 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 442.03 for the unpaid allowance to be paid by the Enlistment Office. 12.  On 17 August 1999 the South Regional Military Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 13.  On 3 November 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Court found against the applicant. 14.  On 7 December 1999 the South Regional Military Court upheld that decision. 15.  On 11 July 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 3 November 1999 and 7 December 1999 upon a protest, lodged by the President of the Supreme Court (at the applicant’s request), and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 16.  The applicant lodged an additional claim asking to change the date of his dismissal and requesting the payment of an insurance premium, compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and the enforcement of the decision of 8 June 1999. 17.  On 3 November 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Court, considering the case in the applicant’s presence, changed the date of his dismissal and ordered the Enlistment Office to pay him UAH 791.78 for the unpaid allowance and other payments. 18.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision. 19.  In a letter of 30 January 2004, the applicant informed the Court that the decision of 3 November 2000 had been enforced in full, without specifying the date of enforcement. 20.  In August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaporizhzhya Court against the Enlistment Office and the Ministry of Defence with claims similar to those in the second set of proceedings. 21.  On 31 August 2000 the court returned the applicant’s claim, stating that he had failed to pay the court fee and to enclose any evidence in support of his claim as required by the legislation. 22.  The applicant neither appealed against that decision nor submitted his claim anew. 23.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Central Regional Military Court against the Ministry of Defence contesting the lawfulness of his dismissal from the military service and seeking compensation for damage. The applicant also clamed that the defendant had been unlawfully ignoring the court decisions in his favour. 24.  On 12 December 2000 the court returned the applicant’s claim for res judicata reasons, stating, in particular, that such a claim had already been considered by the courts. 25.  On 23 January 2001 the Supreme Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, finding that the applicant’s claim had not been considered by the courts before. 26.  On 5 March 2001 the Central Regional Military Court returned the applicant’s claim for failure to indicate all the requisites of the claim, and to enclose any evidence in its support, as required by the legislation. 27.  The applicant states that this decision was sent to him too late to enable him to appeal against it within the fixed time-limit. The applicant did not submit any request for an extension of the time-limit for appeal. 28.  On 12 April 2001 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 5 March 2001 under the extraordinary review procedure.