4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. He is a pensioner. 5.  In 1998 he lodged with the Râşcani District Court a civil action against a third person (“C.”) seeking compensation for alleged non-compliance with a contract between them. 6.  Between February and July 1998 the court adjourned the hearings on six occasions due to C.’s failure to appear before it. 7.  On 21 July 1998, the Râşcani District Court decided to hear the case in the absence of C., while finding that he had been legally summonsed. It upheld the applicant’s action and ordered C. to pay him 1,500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of approximately 287 euros (EUR) at the time). 8.  Since neither of the parties appealed against the judgment within the legal time-limit of fifteen days, it became enforceable on 5 August 1998, when an enforcement warrant was issued. 9.  After that date the applicant complained on numerous occasions to different State authorities about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 July 1998. In particular he complained to the Râşcani District Court, the Ministry of Justice and to the Superior Council of Magistrates. 10.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the judgment was partially enforced, the applicant receiving from the bailiff MDL 500. 11.  In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case of July 2002, the Government informed the Court that after the communication of the case, the Chişinău Regional Court had examined an appeal allegedly lodged by C. on 10 December 1998 and had quashed the judgment of 21 July 1998. The Government also argued that the judgment of 21 July 1998 had been served on C. on 27 November 1998. 12.  The domestic case-file, sent to the Court by the Government, contains an appeal signed by C., dated 10 December 1998 and bearing two entry stamps. The first stamp is of an unknown origin and has the date 10 December 1998 but no entry number. The second stamp is that of the Râşcani District Court and bears the date 15 May 2002 and the entry number 2304. 13.  The domestic case-file does not contain any evidence as to why the appeal was not examined between 10 December 1998 and 11 June 2002 or to the effect that between those dates defendant C. had made any enquiries about his appeal. 14.  In his appeal C. disputed the merits of the case and requested an extension of the legal time-limit for lodging the appeal. He argued that he only found out about the judgment of 21 July 1998 on 27 November 1998. 15.  On 21 May 2002, C. lodged a request with the Chişinău Regional Court asking for a stay of the enforcement proceedings. He also argued that he had found out about the judgment of 21 July 1998 in December 1998. 16.  Also on 21 May 2002, the President of the Chişinău Regional Court appointed Judge N. Traciuc to take charge of the case and decided that the first hearing was to take place on 4 June 2002. 17.  On 4 June 2002 Judge N. Traciuc issued a certificate confirming the fact that the case of Istrate v. C. was on the role of the Chişinău Regional Court and that for that reason a stay of the enforcement proceedings of the judgment of the first-instance court had been ordered. The case-file does not contain any formal decision to stay the proceedings. 18.  On 11 June 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court examined C.’s appeal in the absence of the applicant and upheld it. It quashed the judgment of 21 July 1998 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. It did not, however, examine C.’s request for a prolongation of the time-limit for lodging the appeal. 19.  It appears from the case-file sent by the Government that the applicant was sent a telegram informing him of the hearing of 11 June 2002; however, the file does not contain any copy of a recorded delivery receipt. 20.  According to the applicant he found out about the appeal and the judgment of 11 June 2002 from the Government’s observations of July 2002 when they were sent to him by the Court. 21.  On 27 December 2002 the Râşcani District Court struck the case out of its list of cases due to the applicant’s failure to appear.