4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1947 and lives in the city of Simferopol, Ukraine. 5.  In December 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Simferopol Garrison Military Court against a local military enlistment office seeking an order to recalculate his pension. 6.  On 20 May 2005 the court found against the applicant. On 11 August 2005, following his appeal, the Navy Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 7.  On 30 August 2005 the applicant appealed on points of law. 8.  On 17 October 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine allowed the applicant a time-limit until 1 November 2005 to rectify the procedural shortcomings of his appeal on points of law. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The [present] appeal on points of law does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 213 of the Code of Administrative Justice, as the applicant failed to pay the court fee and to provide a number of copies of the appeal on points of law corresponding to the number of persons involved in the proceedings ...
[The court decides to] set for Gavrilov V.V. a deadline of 1 November 2005 for rectifying the shortcomings of the appeal on points of law submitted by him.
[The court brings to] the attention of Gavrilov V.V. that if he fails to rectify the above shortcomings, in accordance with Article 108 of the Code of Administrative Justice, the appeal on points of law will be returned to the applicant and considered not submitted.” 9.  The applicant dispatched his rectified appeal on points of law by registered post on 24 October 2005. It appears that the applicant resubmitted several copies of the appeal dated 30 August 2005 accompanied, in accordance with the instructions of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, with proof of payment of the court fee. 10.  According to the acknowledgment of receipt form, the letter was received by the court registry on 27 October 2005. 11.  On 7 November 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine adopted a decision which stated, inter alia, as follows:
“Gavrilov V.V. failed to rectify the shortcomings indicated in the ruling [of 17 October 2005] within the time-limit granted by the court, the appeal on points of law should, therefore, be considered as not submitted and be returned to the applicant.” 12.  On 10 November 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine adopted another decision, the relevant part of which read as follows:
“When the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine received the [applicant’s] appeal on points of law, it was established that the above appeal on points of law had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit for lodging such an appeal as provided for by Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice ... In particular the challenged ruling of the Navy Court of Appeal was delivered on 11 August 2005, the appeal on points of law was dated 30 August 2005, and, according to the postmark, was dispatched to the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine on 24 October 2005, the applicant failed to submit a request for an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal on points of law, his appeal on points of law should therefore be left without examination.”