4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Rozhdestvenskoye, Kostroma Region. 5.  The applicant is disabled following his participation in the emergency clean-up operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and receives compensation for health damage. 6.  On 30 April 1999 he brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the town of Sharya of the Kostroma Region (Отдел социальной защиты населения г. Шарьи Костромской Области), in which he sought increase of his monthly compensation and recovery of the arrears. 7.  The first hearing was scheduled for 30 August 1999. Between 30 August 1999 and 30 November 2000 four hearings were held by the court, while seven hearings had to be rescheduled due to the lack of attendance by the respondent or a third party, two hearings did not take place due to the applicant’s default in appearance, and one hearing was cancelled for the judge’s illness. 8.  By a judgment of 30 November 2000 the Sharya Town Court of the Kostroma Region (“the Town Court”) rejected the applicant’s claims. 9.  On 31 January 2001 the Kostroma Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the judgment of 30 November 2000 on the applicant’s appeal for erroneous application of the material law and ordered to re‑consider the case. 10.  By a decision of 15 February 2001 the Town Court stayed the proceedings waiting for the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Constitutional Court of Russia, which were relevant to the determination of the applicant’s case. 11.  On 19 June 2002 the Constitutional Court delivered its decision on the issue pending before it, and the proceedings in the applicant’s case were resumed on 18 November 2002. 12.  By a decision of 26 December 2002 the Town Court granted the applicant’s challenge of the judge and assigned the case to a different judge. 13.  Between 14 July and 9 December 2003 the court repeatedly requested that the applicant submit information about his earnings during certain periods of time. Overall, in the second round of the proceedings, two hearings were held as scheduled, two of them did not happen as the applicant did not appear, and one was postponed due to the respondent’s default in appearance. 14.  By a judgment of 9 December 2003 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s claims in part. However, that judgment was set aside by the Regional Court on both parties’ appeal on 2 February 2004. 15.  After one hearing in the new round of the proceedings, on 16 April 2004 the Town Court again granted the applicant’s claims in part. The court ordered the Welfare Office to recalculate the compensation payments and awarded the applicant 6,936 Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid monthly and to be adjusted in accordance with the legislation. The court also recovered the debt in the amount of RUB 259,818 and reimbursement of the legal costs in the amount of RUB 12,051. 16.  On 16 June 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 17.  The amount of RUB 259,818 was paid to the applicant on 12 August 2005, and RUB 12,051 was paid on 30 December 2005. Following the delay in the payment of the lump-sum amounts awarded on 16 April 2004, the applicant obtained compensation for the depreciation of the awards in the amount of RUB 31,084 on 18 November 2005 and RUB 1,617 on 17 March 2006. The amount of RUB 31,084 was paid to the applicant on 28 September 2006. 18.  By a decision of 10 March 2006 the Town Court adjusted the applicant’s monthly payment in line with the consumer prices index to RUB 7,900. It appears from the applicant’s observations that this decision, as well as the decisions taken in the subsequent years, has been enforced with a delay or not enforced altogether.