5.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Mikhaylovich Petrov was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer. 6.  In 2001 he brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы, hereinafter the “Commission”) for recalculation of his pension as from 1990 to take account of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension. 7.  On 30 April 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's claim, adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.5 and awarded him 84,915.42 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears. 8.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 10 May 2002. 9.  On 3 November 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant. 10.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was informed about the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure. 11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 30 April 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received a copy of the final decision on 13 August 2004. 12.  The new hearing was scheduled for 16 September 2004. The applicant could not attend the hearing, and on 9 September 2004 asked the court to postpone it. 13.  On 24 October 2004 the applicant received a letter from the court, which enclosed a copy of the decision of the Tverskoy District Court of 6 October 2004 by which the applicant's action was left without consideration for his failure to appear twice before the court. The applicant claims that the court did not inform him about the new date of the hearing. The applicant filed an appeal, but, since the time-limit for an appeal was up, the court ignored his petition.