n 31 August 1999 the district court granted the applicant's request to hear three witnesses and postponed the hearing until 16 September 1999.
14. On 16 September 1999 the district court heard two witnesses, granted the applicant's request to summon two other witnesses and postponed the hearing until 17 December 1999.
15. On 17 December 1999 the hearing was postponed because the judge was ill.
16. On 12 January 2000 the hearing was postponed because of the applicant's absence.
17. On 20 January 2000 the district court heard two witnesses and postponed the hearing until 22 February 2000 at the applicant's request.
18. On 22 February 2000 the hearing was postponed because the judge was ill; a new hearing was scheduled on 9 June 2000.
19. Between 9 June and 17 October 2000 hearings were postponed on three occasions at the applicant's request.
20. On 17 October 2000 the hearing was postponed until 21 November 2000 pending receipt of information from other courts confirming the applicant's claims.
21. On 21 November 2000 the district court granted the applicant's application to request materials from the criminal case in which the applicant had been granted victim status in substantiation of his pecuniary damage claims; the hearing was postponed until 13 February 2001.
22. The 13 February 2001 hearing was postponed until 26 April 2001 because of the applicant's absence.
23. The 26 April 2001 hearing was postponed because of a defendant's absence.
24. On 12 July 2001 the applicant requested the district court to amend his statement of claims; the hearing was rescheduled on 20 November 2001.
25. On 20 November 2001 the hearing was postponed because of a defendant's absence and the applicant's failure to submit an additional list of his lost property.
26. On 12 March 2002 the applicant provided the district court with an additional list of his lost property; the hearing was postponed because of the defendants' absence.
27. On 10 September 2002 a hearing was postponed because of the applicant's and defendants' absence.
28. On 13 February 2003 a hearing was postponed because the defendants had not been notified of it and failed to appear.
29. On 26 February 2003 the district court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant's claim. The court orally delivered only the operative part of the judgment, without providing any reasons.
C. Ensuing events
30. On 11 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 26 February 2003. In his appeal he mentioned that the full text of the judgment had not yet been prepared and that therefore his appeal was preliminary and would be amended.
31. On the same day the applicant complained to the St. Petersburg City Court ("the city court") that the full text of the judgment of 26 February 2003 had still not been prepared, whereas Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") provided that a reasoned judgment was to be finalised within five days.
32. On 22 July 2003 the city court informed the applicant that Judge K. (the presiding judge in his case) was on holiday and that the full text of the judgment of 26 February 2003 would be drafted as soon as possible.
33. On 25 July 2003 the district court received the applicant's appeal.
34. On 1 September 2003 the district court dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground of his failure to respect the ten-day time-limit prescribed by law. It mentioned that the applicant's appeal had been received on 25 July 2003, whereas the judgment had been given on 26 February 2003.
35. On 4 September 2003 the applicant was informed that the full text of the judgment had been finalised on 3 September 2003.
36. The a
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
