4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Donetsk. 5.  In 1983 the applicant, who at the time was a minor, had an accident at a summer camp belonging to the Velyka Novosilka fertilizer factory (“the Factory”; Великоновоселківський міжгосподарський комбікормовий завод) and sustained permanent disability. 6.  On 9 March 1994 the applicant sued the Factory for damages, alleging that the accident in 1983 had been caused by the negligence of the camp's staff. 7.  On 15 November 1994 the Budyonivsky District Court of Donetsk (the “District Court”; Будьонівський районний суд м. Донецькa) ordered a medical assessment of the applicant's injuries. On 23 November 1994 a commission of five experts established that the applicant suffered from a 100% disability and needed special care. 8.  On 5 August 1997 the District Court found in favour of the applicant, awarding him a lump sum in damages and monthly payments to cover his special care needs. The Factory challenged the judgment on the ground that, although the camp had been a part of its assets at the time, it was directly managed by the Velyka Novosilka Trade Union of Agricultural Workers (the “Trade Union”; Великоновосілківський районний комітет профспілки працівників агропромислового комплексу), which therefore should assume all liability for the accident. 9.  On 27 April 1995 the Donetsk Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Донецький обласний суд)[1] granted the appeal, quashed the judgment of 5 August 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 10.  On 27 November 1995 the District Court allowed the applicant's claim, awarding him damages against the Trade Union. The Trade Union appealed. 11.  On 11 January 1996 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 12.  During its further consideration of the case, the District Court ordered another expert examination of the applicant's health. On 27 March 1996 a commission of four experts found that the applicant's special care needs had not substantially changed since the last assessment. 13.  On 5 August 1997 the District Court awarded the applicant damages against the Trade Union. 14.  On 25 September 1997 the Regional Court upheld this judgment and it became final. 15.  In October 1997 the enforcement proceedings were initiated in respect of the judgment of 5 August 1997. 16.  On 27 February 1998 the District Court Bailiff (судовий виконавець) informed the applicant that the judgment remained unenforced on account of the debtor's lack of funds. 17.  On 7 October 1998 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged a protest (an extraordinary appeal) against the rulings of 5 August and 25 September 1997 with the Presidium of the Regional Court. 18.  On 28 October 1998 the Presidium granted the protest and remitted the case for a fresh examination, indicating that the liability of the Trade Union had not been sufficiently established. 19.  On 9 November 1998 the Regional Court decided to assume first-instance jurisdiction over the applicant's claims. 20.  In December 1998 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on account of re-opening of the judicial proceedings. 21.  On 26 March 1999 the Regional Court decided again that the Factory was responsible for the actions and omissions of the camp's staff, and ordered it to pay the applicant compensation for his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 22.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, finding that the conclusion of the Regional Court as to the Factory's liability was not sufficiently substantiated. 23.  On 19 October 1999 the Regional Court ordered another expert opinion concerning the applicant's state of health. 24.  In February 2000 a commission of five experts upheld the previous conclusions from 1994 and 1996. 25.  On 14 March 2000 the Regional Court awarded the applicant compensation and monthly payments against the Factory. The Factory appealed in cassation. 26.  On 31 May 2000 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment essentially for the same reasons as in 1999. 27.  During this consideration of the case, two fresh medical assessments of the applicant's health were ordered. On 12 December 2000 a commission of five experts established that the applicant needed an electric wheelchair and, on 15 August 2001, another commission calculated the applicant's daily expenses for sanitary towels. 28.  From September 2000 to August 2001, the applicant lodged some six unsuccessful applications for the withdrawal of Judge K. from the case. 29.  On 23 August 2001 the Regional Court found that, although the funds of the summer camp belonged to the Factory and the Trade Union, the camp had separate legal liability for the acts and omissions of its staff. The court further rejected the applicant's claims, noting that he had never lodged a specific claim against the camp. 30.  On 22 May 2002 the Chamber of fifteen judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of 23 August 2001. 31.  Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to re-open the proceedings.