4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow. 5.  In July 1996 the applicant sued his former employer, a private company, for wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 6.  On 31 January and 4 December 1997 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow issued judgments in the applicant’s action which were subsequently quashed on appeal. 7.  The applicant amended his claims seeking reinstatement because he had been meanwhile dismissed. 8.  Between 13 July 1998 and 18 May 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow listed thirteen hearings, of which the hearing on 13 July 1998 was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence and eight hearings were adjourned so as to give time to his former employer to produce additional evidence or to read materials submitted by the applicant. The hearings of 3 and 18 March 1999 were adjourned due to the employer’s absence. 9.  On 8 June 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow allowed the applicant’s claim in part. 10.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 8 June 1999. On 17 November 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed that the bailiffs had failed to comply with the domestic time-limit for the enforcement of judgments. 11.  On 26 November 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 8 June 1999. The judgments remained unenforced. 12.  On 14 December 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 8 June and 26 November 1999 and remitted the case to a differently composed bench. 13.  On 23 January 2001 the President of the Nikulinskiy District Court assigned the case to a judge. 14.  Of nineteen hearings scheduled between 7 February 2001 and 19 December 2002 two hearings were adjourned on the applicant’s request. Six hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to attend and five hearings were postponed as to give the defendant time to submit additional evidence. Three hearings were adjourned because the presiding judge was on leave or was involved in other proceedings. 15.  On 22 January 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow reinstated the applicant, awarded him the arrears and a partial compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 16.  On 28 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. 17.  On 6 March 2003 bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. 18.  On 15 April 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, upon the bailiff’s request, stayed the enforcement proceedings pending clarification of the judgment of 22 January 2003. 19.  The applicant complained to a court that the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, had not been enforced. On 13 August 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the complaint holding that the enforcement proceedings had been lawfully stayed. 20.  On 4 September 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow clarified the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, and held that the applicant had to be immediately reinstated in his previous position. The court resumed the enforcement proceedings. 21.  On 9 February 2004 the employer issued an order reinstating the applicant in his previous position. On 17 February 2004 the applicant asked the employer to grant him annual leave for all years of absence since 1996 and to dismiss him after the leave. 22.  On 19 February 2004 the bailiffs asked the court to stay the enforcement until the applicant would return from his leave. 23.  On 14 April 2004 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow stayed the proceedings until the end of the applicant’s leave. The applicant appealed against that decision on 7 June 2004. 24.  On 15 June 2004 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow disallowed the appeal because the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging it.