4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Odessa. 5.  In October 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Malynivsky District Court of Odessa (“the Malynivsky Court,” Малинівський районний суд м. Одеса) against Ms T. V., her sister, seeking to divide their house and adjacent land. Subsequently the proceedings were transferred to the Kyivsky District Court of Odessa (“the Kyivsky Court,” Київський районний суд м. Одеса). 6.  Between 1993 and 2000 some six expert assessments were carried out to develop proposals for dividing the house and the land. 7.  On 12 December 2000 the Kyivsky Court rejected the applicant's claims. The court found that it was not possible to divide the property to the satisfaction of the parties. This decision became final. 8.  On 6 June 2001 the Presidium of the Odessa Regional Court (“the Regional Court”)[1] quashed this judgment, following a supervisory protest, lodged by its Deputy President, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. Ms T. V. lodged a counter-claim, proposing an alternative scheme for dividing the house and the land. 9.  On 5 December 2001 the Kyivsky Court partly allowed the claims of both parties, having divided the house and the land between them. Ms T. V. appealed, seeking to re-divide the house. Neither party sought to re-divide the land, and the judgment of 5 December 2001 in this part became final. 10.  On 20 June 2002 the Regional Court amended the judgment of 5 December 2001, having re-divided the house between the parties. This judgment became final on 17 January 2003, after the Supreme Court had rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation. 11.  In July 2002 Ms T. V. requested the Kyivsky Court to explain how to reconcile the land-division scheme ordered by the judgment of 5 December 2001 with that of the house division pursuant the judgment of 20 June 2002. In its explanatory decision of 9 August 2002, the court re-divided the land to remove the inconsistencies with the house-division scheme. The enforcement proceedings were instituted. 12.  The applicant appealed against the explanatory decision of 9 August 2002. 13.  On 30 March 2004 the Regional Court found that, by re-dividing the land, the Kyivsky Court had altered the final judgment of 20 June 2002 and thereby exceeded its jurisdictional authority. The court therefore quashed the explanation of 9 August 2002. 14.  On 13 April 2004 Ms T. V. requested the Regional Court to re-open the proceedings and review its decision of 20 June 2002 “in the light of newly disclosed circumstances” (the quashing of the explanatory judgment of 9 August 2002). 15.  On 18 May 2004 the Regional Court re-opened the proceedings and on 16 June 2004 re-divided the land to accommodate for the house-division scheme established on 20 June 2002. 16.  On 12 July 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation against the judgments of 5 December 2001 and 20 June 2002 and against the decision of 16 June 2004 to re-divide the land. 17.  On 6 December 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the aforementioned judgments, finding that on 17 January 2003 they had already been subject to cassation review. However, the Supreme Court remitted the case for a new consideration “in the light of newly disclosed circumstances”, having quashed the decision of 16 June 2004. In particular, it found that this decision had been taken by an incompetent judicial panel, since one of its members had previously signed the judgment of 20 June 2002. 18.  On 5 April 2007 the Regional Court annulled the land-division scheme established by the judgment of 5 December 2001 and ordered the division, consistent with the division of the house pursuant the judgment of 20 June 2002. 19.  The applicant has lodged a cassation appeal against this decision, seeking to re-divide the house. The consideration of her cassation appeal is pending.