5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Lensk in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation. 6.  In 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Government, seeking to recover the monetary value of a State promissory note for purchasing of a Russian-made car. 7.  On 4 March 2003 the Lenskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded her 138,967 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation and RUB 2,802.32 in reimbursement of the court fee, payable by the Ministry of Finance. 8.  On 21 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) dismissed the appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court rejected the Ministry’s argument that the first-instance court had unlawfully refused to apply the Commodity Bonds Act governing redemption of promissory notes for purchasing of cars. 9.  On 15 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance lodged an application for supervisory review before the Presidium of the Supreme Court. It claimed that the courts had unlawfully refused to apply the provisions of the Commodity Bonds Act and the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes. It is unclear whether any procedural decision was taken on that application. 10.  On 28 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review, invoking the same arguments. According to the Government, the proceedings on the applicant’s claim had been previously “suspended” on 23 October 2003 because the Supreme Court had sent a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court had been requested to decide on compatibility of the Commodity Bonds Act with the Constitution. 11.  On 7 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the Ministry’s application for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 4 March 2003, as upheld on 21 April 2003, and dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes which had extended the period of redemption until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium’s assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting re-consideration of the case.