6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow. 7.  In May 1995 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a musical accompanist in the municipal school. On 11 August 1995 he appealed against his dismissal to the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow. He also sought payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 8.  On 4 June 1996 the Butyrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim concerning the reinstatement and ordered that the claim for the wage arrears should be considered separately. The judgment became final on 14 August 1996 when the Moscow City Court upheld it on appeal. 9.  By way of a supervisory review, on 20 March 1997 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 4 June and 14 August 1996 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the District Court. 10.  Between May and October 1998 the Butyrskiy District Court listed six hearings, of which two were adjourned upon the applicant's request and three were postponed due to the defendant's absence. 11.  On 22 October 1998 the Butyrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action. That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 16 December 1998. The case was returned for a new examination by the District Court. 12.  On 9 September 1999 a new judge of the District Court was assigned to the applicant's case. He listed the first hearing for 12 October 1999. 13.  Of the six hearings fixed between 12 October 1999 and 4 April 2000, three hearings were postponed because the defendant defaulted or asked for an adjournment and two were adjourned to allow the parties to submit additional evidence. 14.  On 4 April 2000 the Butyrskiy District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. The court ordered that the applicant should be reinstated and paid 20,201.98 Russian roubles (RUR) in wage arrears and RUR 300 for non-pecuniary damage. The District Court, by an interim decision, also decided that the claim concerning calculation of the applicant's wage should be determined in a separate set of the proceedings. 15.  The judgment of 4 April 2000 was upheld on appeal on 20 June 2000 by the Moscow City Court. 16.  On 28 September 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 4 April and 20 June 2000 in the part concerning payment of the wage arrears and remitted this matter for a new examination. 17.  It appears that the District Court received the case-file on 15 February 2001 and fixed the first hearing for 6 March 2001. 18.  Between 6 March 2001 and 11 January 2002 the District Court listed seven hearings, of which four hearings were adjourned because the defendant defaulted or asked for an adjournment, one was postponed because the parties did not attend and two hearings were adjourned because the applicant amended his claims. 19.  No hearings were held between 11 January and 18 March 2002 because the judge was involved in other unrelated proceedings. 20.  Of the three hearings listed between 18 March and 30 April 2002, one hearing was adjourned upon the defendant's request and one was postponed because the parties could not attend. 21.  On 30 April 2002 the Butyrskiy District Court accepted the applicant's claims for wage arrears and awarded him RUR 768,885.34. That judgment was quashed by the Moscow City Court on 30 July 2002. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the District Court. 22.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant was reinstated in his position. However, on the following day his employer informed him about his forthcoming dismissal on 6 June 2000.  The applicant appealed against the dismissal to a court on 30 June 2000. 23.  A judge was assigned to the case on 23 October 2000 and the first hearing was listed for 22 November 2000.  Of the fifteen hearings listed between 22 November 2000 and 24 May 2002, six hearings were adjourned because the parties did not attend, three were postponed to obtain additional evidence, three were adjourned because the defendant defaulted and one was postponed because a fire broke out in the courthouse. 24.  On 24 May 2002 the Butyrskiy District Court held that the applicant's dismissal in 2000 had been unlawful and awarded him wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 25.  On 14 November 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 24 May 2002 in the part concerning the wage arrears, remitted this matter for a fresh examination and upheld the remainder of the judgment. 26.  On 26 November 2002 the Butyrskiy District Court joined two sets of the proceedings related to the applicant's dismissals in 1995 and 2000. 27.  On 18 December 2002 the Butyrskiy District Court partly granted the applicant's action and awarded him RUR 45,648.14 to be paid by the Department of Culture of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 24 March 2003. 28.  Enforcement proceedings were opened and on 21 July 2003 the Department of Culture transferred the sum of RUR 45,648.14 to the deposit account of a public notary. The applicant was invited to receive money.