6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lived in Moscow.
7.  In June 1998 he deposited 5,187.40 United States dollars in a three‑month account with Russian Credit, a private bank.
8.  In August 1998 the country suffered a financial crisis, the rouble fell, and the bank defaulted. In December 1998 the applicant accepted the bank’s offer to settle and close his account in return for the balance in depreciated roubles. By the time the money reached the applicant in March 1999, the rouble had depreciated further.
9.  In October 1999 the bank went into external administration and its debt repayments were frozen pending a restructuring.
10.  In May 2000 the bank and its creditors negotiated a group settlement of the pre-October 1999 debt and had it approved by the courts. The settlement discharged the bank from fines, penalties, default interest, and damages arising under legislation, contracts with clients, and court decisions.
11.  In December 2001 the applicant sued the bank for the loss caused by the exchange-rate fluctuations between the day he had accepted the bank’s offer and the day the money had arrived. The bank objected to that claim on the ground that it had extinguished its obligations by repaying the deposit to the applicant. On 17 April 2002 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow awarded the applicant 77,603.50 Russian roubles (RUB)[1].
12.  In May 2003 the applicant filed a writ of execution with a bailiff.
13.  On 17 June 2003, on the application of the bank, the District Court terminated the enforcement of its judgment in view of the group settlement. The District Court said:
Considering the nature of the legal relationship at issue, the court takes into account the fact that the enforcement proceedings have been instituted with the purpose of collecting from [Russian Credit] the liabilities that had come into existence before 18 October 1999 inclusive and, under the ... terms of the friendly settlement, are related to [the bank’s] restructured liabilities subject to novation on the terms of the friendly settlement approved by a [court decision] that had defined the procedure and terms of the extinction of the liabilities.
Pursuant to section 23 § 2 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the conclusion of a friendly settlement between a creditor and a debtor constitutes a ground for the termination of the enforcement proceedings, and therefore the [bank’s] application shall be granted and the [enforcement proceedings] shall be terminated.
14.  In July 2003, in reply to the applicant’s query, the bank’s external administrator informed the applicant that his deposit had not been on the books and that under the terms of the group settlement his judgment debt could not be paid.
15.  On 14 August 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision, finding that the applicant’s individual claim was to be settled with the group claim. The City Court said:
When terminating the [enforcement] proceedings the [District Court] has referred to the provisions of section 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reached the conclusion that the terms of the said friendly settlement regarding the restructuring of the credit obligations of [Russian Credit] extended also to [the applicant].
The [City Court] agrees with the said conclusion of the [District Court] as based on the provisions of the law and confirmed by the circumstances of the present case.