Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Финков (Finkov) против России» [англ.]

November 1997 and remitted the case for re-examination to the Proletarskiy District Court.
9. The hearings were adjourned on 14 May 2001 and on 7 June 2001 due to the authorities' failure to appear.
10. The next hearing was fixed for 5 July 2001 when it was again postponed as the applicant had amended his claims.
11. On 17 September 2001 the applicant lodged additional claims.
12. On 24 September 2001 the court granted the authorities' request for stay in the proceedings on the grounds that there were pending related proceedings in the Supreme Court of Russia and in the Constitutional Court of Russia. The proceedings in the Constitutional Court had been initiated by the applicant (see para. 60 below). The applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings, to no avail.
13. On 24 October 2002 the case was reopened and assigned for hearing for 21 November 2002.
14. On 21 November 2002 the authorities failed to appear and the proceedings were adjourned.
15. On 10 December 2002 the Proletarskiy District Court accepted the applicant's claims in part. It ordered that the Social Security Services should pay him a lump sum of RUB 37,992.75 in compensation for health damage, monthly payments of RUB 4,850 and a lump sum of RUB 5,000 in compensation for damage caused by a delay in the payment of monthly benefits. The District Court also noted that the amount of monthly payments was to be index-linked in accordance with the law. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 7 May 2003.

3. Quashing of the judgment of 10 December 2002, as upheld
on 7 May 2003, and ensuing proceedings

16. In 2003 the authorities, as well as the applicant, requested reopening of the proceedings by way of supervisory review.
17. On 13 November 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgments of 10 December 2002 and 7 May 2003 and sent the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium held that the lower court had not calculated the sums of compensation and adjustment of monthly payments in accordance with the relevant law provisions, considering it as mistakes in implementation of substantive, as well as procedural, law.
18. On 18 December 2003 the authorities failed to appear in court and the hearing was adjourned.
19. On 23 January 2004 the applicant specified his claim.
20. On 12 February 2004 the case was postponed as the authorities were not properly informed about the hearing.
21. On 26 February 2004 the authorities failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned.
22. On 4 March 2004 the examination of the case was postponed as the judge was considering another case.
23. On 1 April 2004 the case was adjourned because of default in appearance of the applicant.
24. On 22 April 2004 the Proletarskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action in full. The applicant appealed. However, on 29 April 2004 the District Court adjourned the examination of the appeal because the applicant had only submitted a short version of his appeal statement. On 7 June 2004 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 April 2004 as unlawful.
25. The applicant contested the accuracy of the minutes of the hearing of 22 April 2004. On 29 April 2004 the Proletarskiy District Court dismissed the claim without consideration on the merits. The applicant appealed and on 7 July 2004 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 April 2004 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 2 September 2004 the applicant's claim concerning the minutes was dismissed on the merits.
26. On 13 October 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of 22 April 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
27. On 16 November 2004 the case was assigned to

> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11