4.  The applicant was born in 1943 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 an unspecified date 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 March 2001 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 20,603.67. 8.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 16 May 2001. 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 March 2001 and decision of 16 May 2001 was paid to him by two money transfers dated 7 March 2003 (20,603.67 RUR) and 19 February 2004 (5,130.31 RUR) respectively. 10.  On 28 May 2002 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s claim for penalty in connection with alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 March 2001. The court ordered the authority to pay the applicant RUR 38,940.93. 11.  The judgment of 28 May 2002 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 13 June 2002. 12.  Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings. 13.  By letter of 18 February 2003 the bailiffs returned the writ and supporting documents to the applicant and invited him to apply to a local branch of the Federal Treasury. 14.  It appears that the applicant followed these instructions and submitted the writ and supporting documents to the Federal Treasury. On 4 March 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the money due by reference to the fact that the respondent authority had not been registered. 15.  On an unspecified date the respondent 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. 16.  It appears that by letter of 17 June 2003 the Regional Court notified the applicant and other parties in the case of the supervisory review hearing of 26 June 2003. 17.  On 26 June 2003 the 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. 18.  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. 19.  It appears that on 16 June and 10 October 2003 the District Court examined and fully granted the applicant’s two fresh claims for unpaid social benefits. It ordered the authority to pay RUR 18,721.85 and RUR 5,130.31 respectively. Both decisions were enforced with a six months delay, in December 2003 and February 2004 respectively.