4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine. 5.  At the material time the applicant and four other shareholders had equal shares in the private company A. (“the company”). In 1993 the company bought certain premises from a private company in a building previously owned by the State. 6.  In November 1993 the shareholders decided to liquidate the company and the liquidation procedure was initiated. On 27 March 1995 the liquidation procedure was completed and the company was removed from the relevant companies' register. As a result of the distribution of the company's property, the applicant acquired the title to the aforesaid premises (“the disputed property”). However, according to the applicant's submissions, he did not register his ownership of them. 7.  On 14 February 2000 Mrs K. and her minor children, the heirs of one of the shareholders of the company, instituted proceedings in the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk against the applicant, challenging his title to the disputed property. The other shareholders and the Donetsk Regional Department of the State Property Fund were involved in the proceedings as third parties. The applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking recognition of his title to the disputed property. 8.  On 20 September 2000 the court ordered the attachment of the disputed premises. 9. In May 2004 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Property Fund before the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk alleging that the latter had sold a part of the premises situated in the same building to a private company. The applicant challenged the sales contract alleging that these premises formed part of the disputed property. Initially the court considered the claim within the proceedings which were already pending. By a ruling of 14 June 2004 the court disjoined the claim into separate proceedings. 10.  On 14 June 2004 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk found for Mrs K. It held, in particular, that the shareholders had failed to comply with the relevant legal procedure for the company's liquidation and the distribution of its property. In consequence, the court declared the related shareholders' decisions null and void, and redistributed the company's property. The court acknowledged Mrs K.'s title to the disputed property apart from the premises in question (see paragraph 9 above). The court awarded the applicant and the other shareholders 64,056[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) each, to be paid by Mrs K. By the same ruling the court lifted the premises' attachment. 11.  On 16 August 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. 12. On 21 September 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 21 August 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant's appeal.