4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Shakhty, the Rostov Region. 5.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle him to receive a passenger car in 1993. He paid the car's full value but never received the car. 6.  On 17 July 2002 the applicant received 31,375.48 Russian roubles (RUB) of compensation in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22 below). This amount equalled to 33.41% of the car value. 7. The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, claiming the full monetary value of the promissory notes for purchasing of a car. 8. On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) allowed the applicant's action, having found that the State had failed in its obligation to grant the applicant a car and had only provided a partial compensation instead. The court further held that a unilateral change of the conditions of the redemption of the commodity bonds by the State in accordance with the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 and the respective State Programme (see below) did not “comply with the constitutional principles and principles of the civil law”, because a partial payment of a car's value did not constitute a sufficient remedy of the damage caused to the bond holders. The court awarded the applicant RUB 66,693.35, that is the full car price less the amount already paid to him in July 2002, to be paid at the expense of the Federal Treasury. 9.  On 30 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced. 10.  In June 2004 the respondent authority lodged a request for supervisory review of the case with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. 11.  On 14 October 2004 the Presidium reviewed the lower courts' judgments by way of the supervisory review proceedings and established, in particular, that the lower courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds' Act and the Government's Resolution no. 1006. The Presidium ruled as follows:
“Having regard to the substantive violation of the material law, the judicial decisions taken in the case under consideration cannot be held lawful and well-founded and should be quashed [...].” 12.  The Presidium annulled the judgment of 1 April 2003 and the appeal decision of 30 April 2003 and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant's claim in full.