4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Khabarovsk. 5.  Since 1975 the applicant and his family had been living in a dilapidated dwelling. In 1995 the police refused to certify his residence at that address. 6.  On 12 July 1999 the Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk granted the claim by the applicant and three family members against the Khabarovsk Town Council and held that the Town Council should provide them with one or more comfortable flats having an aggregate surface of no less than 12 sq. m per each family member. On 28 September 1999 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 7.  On 26 November 1999 enforcement proceedings were instituted. On 10 March 2000 the proceedings were suspended for six months at the request of the Town Council. On 28 February 2001 a further suspension was granted for an indefinite period of time until such moment as a flat of no less than 48 sq. m had become available. The latter decision was quashed on 30 December 2002. 8.  On 27 January 2003 the Town Council offered three flats to the applicant and his family members. They rejected the offer on the ground that two of the flats did not meet the sanitary standards. 9.  The applicant and his family members asked the court to amend the operative part of the judgment and order the Town Council to pay them the market value of the flat(s). On 23 May 2003 the Industrialniy District Court rejected their request, finding that they had unreasonably refused the three flats which the Town Council had offered them. On 1 July 2003 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. 10.  On 8 September 2003 the Khabarovsk Town Council asked the court to discontinue enforcement proceedings on the ground that the applicant and his family had unreasonably turned down their offer. On 22 September 2004 the Industrialniy District Court rejected the Town Council’s request. It found that, pursuant to the experts’ report of 27 January 2004, the flats offered by the Town Council did not meet the sanitary and technical requirements. On 2 November 2004 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. 11.  On 23 July 2005 the Town Council made a new offer of two flats to the applicant and his son. The son accepted the offer but not the applicant because the flat was in a state of disrepair. 12.  On 11 August 2006 the applicant accepted the flat after the repairs had been carried out.