4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Achisu, the Republic of Dagestan. 5.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant applied to the district court for readjustment of compensation for damage to his son’s health awarded by judgments of 13 August and 4 December 2002 against OAO Dagenergo, an open joint-stock company (“the company”), in line with new legislation. 6.  On 19 April 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala allowed his claim. The court awarded the applicant 61,607 Russian roubles (RUB) in readjustment. The court also ordered the company to pay monthly amounts equal to the living cost for the employable population from 15 December 2004. On 20 May 2005 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal. 7.  On an unspecified date the company initiated supervisory review proceedings. 8.  On 6 October 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic quashed the judgments of 19 April and 20 May 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium established that the courts had erred in the application of the domestic law, namely that they had applied the new legislation retrospectively and had failed to reflect the correct adjustment method in their judgments. 9.  On 22 November 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala ruled against the applicant, finding that the new legislation was inapplicable to the case at hand. 10.  On 10 February 2006 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal. 11.  The applicant was a party to several sets of civil proceedings. 12.  In 1999 he brought an action in connection with an injury sustained by his son. On 13 August 2002 the district court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and ordered the defendant company to pay him pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 19 December 2002 the district court issued a writ of enforcement. The enforcement proceedings were ended on 14 September 2004. 13.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant sued the Department of Education of Izberbash at the Izberbash Town Court on a work-related matter. The applicant sought reinstatement in his job and work-related benefits. On 16 August 2006 the town court rejected the applicant’s action in full. He did not lodge an appeal. 14.  The applicant was also engaged in a housing dispute. On 27 January 2003 the Izberbash Town Council refused to provide him with housing. It does not appear that the applicant challenged the refusal before a court.