4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kostroma. 5.  On 11 May 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma upheld the applicant's action against the Kostroma Town Council and ordered that the Council should:
“...provide Mr Lykov Mikhail Petrovich and his family members - a wife, Ms Lykova Olga Aleksandrovna, a son, Mr Lykov Sergey Mikhailovich and Ms Shelepo Tatiana Pavlovna, with well-equipped living premises that meet sanitary and technical requirements, taking into consideration the right to an additional living surface of one separate room”. 6.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kostroma Regional Court on 21 July 2004. 7.  On 20 August 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted. The judgment remained unenforced because the Council had no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat. 8.  The Kostroma Regional Administration asked the Federal Treasury to provide it with financial resources for purchasing a flat measuring 82 square metres to which the applicant and his family members were entitled under the judgment of 11 May 2004. In December 2004 a sum of 738,000 Russian roubles was credited to an account of the Regional Administration. Having regard to the average market property price in the town of Kostroma, in 2005 the Regional Administration was only able to purchase a flat measuring 57.3 square metres.  The applicant was offered that flat, but he refused to accept it because he was entitled to a bigger flat under the judgment of 11 May 2004. 9.  In January 2006 the applicant's mother-in-law, Ms Shelepo, died. Bailiffs asked the Sverdlovskiy District Court to clarify its judgment of 11 May 2004, having regard to Ms Shelepo's death. On 14 August 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the request. 10.  On 21 August 2006 the bailiffs offered the applicant the same flat which had been purchased in 2005. The applicant again dismissed the offer, noting the size of the flat and its dilapidated state. 11.  On 7 September 2006 enforcement proceedings were closed and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant because he had rejected the bailiffs' offer. 12.  On 14 November 2006 the Sverdlovsk District Court of Kostroma quashed the decision of 7 September 2006. The District Court held that under the judgment of 11 May 2004, as upheld on appeal on 21 July 2004, the applicant was entitled to a well-equipped flat measuring 82 square metres and satisfying sanitary and technical requirements. The applicant had been twice offered the smaller flat which “had not satisfied technical and sanitary requirements, had been in poor state, had been in need of the renovation and, thus, had required, substantial financial resources”. The District Court also noted that Ms Shelepo's death had not effected the applicant's and his family's entitlement to a flat. The judgment of 14 November 2006 was not appealed against and became final. 13.   In December 2006 the enforcement proceedings were re-opened. In March 2007 the Kostroma Town Council informed the applicant that it possessed two flats, i.e. the one which had been bought in 2005 and had already been offered to the applicant, and another one which measured 75.6 square metres. The applicant could choose any one of them. He again rejected the offer arguing that his was entitled to a flat of a bigger living surface.