4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Toronto, Canada. 5.  On 8 August 2000 Mr A. instituted civil proceedings in the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) against the applicant and Mr D. alleging that he had been humiliated by them. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 6.  On an unspecified date Mr A. requested the court to secure his claim by prohibiting the Migration Office of the Kharkiv Department of the Ministry of Interior (“the Migration Office”) from issuing the applicant with an authorisation to leave Ukraine to live permanently abroad. On 18 July 2002 the court granted Mr A.’s request. 7.  On 23 and 30 September 2002 the court quashed the ruling of 18 July 2002 and attached the applicant’s flat. 8.  On 31 October 2002 the applicant went to live permanently in Canada. On 13 December 2002 he came back to Ukraine. 9.  On 25 March 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), following Mr A.’s appeal, quashed the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 and remitted the case for a new consideration to the court. 10.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against Mr A. claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 11.  In May 2003 the applicant waived his permanent residence in Canada in order to restore his right to receive a pension in Ukraine. 12.  In a letter of 2 October 2003 the court explained to the Head of the Migration Office that as on 25 March 2003 the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 had been quashed, the Migration Office should abide by the ruling of 18 July 2002. 13.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant again left Ukraine for Canada, where he lives now. 14. Since July 2004 he has been represented by his representative before the domestic courts. 15.  On 22 April 2005 the court rejected Mr. A.’s claim and partly allowed the applicant’s counterclaim. 16.  On 16 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 22 April 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim. 17.  On 23 February 2006 Mr A. appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court. The cassation proceedings are still pending. 18.  According to the documents provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings some forty-nine hearings were listed by the domestic courts. Nine hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings, one because he was on holiday and one because the judge was ill. Some twenty-four hearings were adjourned because one or more parties to the proceedings or their representatives failed to appear or at their request. From the documents in the case file it cannot be seen that the domestic courts took any steps to ensure the parties’ presence in the court. No hearings were adjourned solely due to the applicant’s failure to appear.