4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine. 5.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the State Institute for Electric Welding, in the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) challenging his dismissal and claiming payment of salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 6.  In the period from August 1996 to 25 February 1998 the applicant's case was considered by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. 7.  The last hearing in 1998 was held by the District Court on 25 February 1998. Then the case file was lost. On 31 May 2000 the District Court resumed the proceedings. 8.  On 9 June 2000 the District Court ordered reconstruction of the case file. 9.  On 26 July 2001 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims. 10.  On 14 March 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. 11.  On 17 October 2002 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims. 12.  On 23 January 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 October 2002 and found against the applicant. 13.  On 15 April 2003 the Supreme Court gave a final decision in the applicant's case by which it dismissed his appeal in cassation. 14.  The applicant tried to review his case under extraordinary procedure, but his efforts were to no avail. 15.  In March 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings against the President of the State Institute for Electric Welding in the Svyatoshin District Court of Kyiv challenging the orders issued by his former employer under which he had been dismissed. On 31 March 2005 the court declined to consider his claims on the ground that the same claim had already been considered by the domestic courts and there had been a final decision in that respect. 16.  On 12 May 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this ruling. 17.  According to the applicant's submissions, in June 2005 he lodged an appeal in cassation against the rulings of 31 March 2005 and 12 May 2005 with the Supreme Court. The applicant did not inform this Court about the outcome of the cassation proceedings.