4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Novyy Bug, Mykolayiv region. He is a farmer. 5.  On 22 July 1993 and 23 June 1995 the Novyy Bug City and District Councils, respectively, rejected the applicant's requests for an additional plot of land for his farm. 6.  On 6 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Novyy Bug City and District Councils in order to obtain a plot of land of 22 hectares from public lands reserved for farming. 7.  By letters of 5 and 20 January 2000, without examination of these requests by the sessions of respective Councils, the applicant was informed that his requests were rejected on the ground that there was no available land designated for that purpose. 8.  On 11 February 2000 the applicant challenged the above-mentioned Councils' refusals before the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court. 9.  The court issued a ruling prohibiting the distribution of the public reserved lands before examination of the applicant's claim on the merits. 10.  On 11 February and 24 March 2000 the Novyy Bug City Council and the Novyy Bug District Council, respectively, rejected the applicant's request of 6 December 1999. 11.  On 4 April 2000 the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered to provide him with a plot of land of 22 hectares indicated on the plan of the public reserved lands of the Novyy Bug City Council. The court ordered the Mykolayiv Department of the Institute of the Land Tenure (Миколаївська філія Інституту землеустрою) to provide the applicant in kind with that plot. The Novyy Bug City Council was ordered to issue the act for permanent use of the mentioned plot by the applicant. By the same judgment, the decisions of the Novyy Bug City Council and the Novyy Bug District Council of 11 February and 24 March 2000 were found null and void. The court also ordered to issue the execution writ, thus the judgment became final and binding immediately upon its adoption. 12.  On 14 April 2000 the Novyy Bug District Council issued land certificates to K.R.P. and S.M.A. (private persons) in respect of the plot of 22 hectares, which had been allocated to the applicant under the judgment of 4 April 2000. 13.  On 2 July 2000 the Deputy President of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court rejected as unsubstantiated the Novyy Bug City and District Councils' request for supervisory review of the judgment of 4 April 2000. 14.  On 14 November 2000 the President of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court quashed the decisions of 4 April 2000 and 2 July 2000 on the ground of new circumstances and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 15.  On 11 June 2001 the Higher Arbitration Court quashed this decision of the President of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court and upheld the judgment of 4 April 2000. 16.  On 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Novyy Bug City Council lodged under the new cassation procedure. On 5 February 2002 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal rejected the Novyy Bug City Council's appeal against the judgment of 4 April 2000 as having been lodged out of time. 17.  On 19 July 2001 the Novy Bug City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”), following the decision of the Higher Court of Arbitration, instituted enforcement proceedings. 18.  On 3 September 2001 the Head of the Bailiffs' Service drew up a report in which was certified the lack of public reserved lands designated for farming, and on 10 October 2001 terminated the enforcement proceedings. 19.  On 22 March 2002 the Mykolayiv Commercial Court found the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings unlawful. In particular, the court established that the bailiff had not duly verified the lack or availability of public reserved lands. The court gave notice to the Prosecutor's Office to the effect that criminal proceedings should be brought against the bailiff. 20.  On 18 October 2002 the Mykolayiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (hereafter “Regional Prosecutor”) rejected the Mykolayiv Commercial Court's request to institute criminal proceedings against the Bailiffs for failure to enforce the above-mentioned judgment. 21.  By a letter of 28 January 2003 the Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that the decision of 18 October 2002 had been quashed as being premature and that the case had been remitted for a further preliminary investigation. 22.  In a letter of 11 March 2004 the Regional Prosecutor stated that the Bailiffs had unlawfully terminated the enforcement proceedings without taking all relevant and appropriate measures to ensure the execution of the court judgment given in the applicant's favour. In particular, the Bailiffs had failed to fine the officials of the Novyy Bug City and District Municipal Councils for having impeded the enforcement proceedings and to request the court to clarify the procedure for enforcement of the judgment. On the basis of these considerations, the prosecutor challenged the Bailiff's decision to terminate the proceedings. 23.  On 9 April 2004 the Head of the Bailiffs Service rejected the applicant's complaint about the termination of the enforcement proceedings due to the applicant's failure to respect the time-limit for challenging the relevant decision of 10 October 2001. 24.  On 21 April 2004 the Novyy Bug State Administration instituted proceedings seeking the eviction of K.R.P. and S.M.A. from the land allocated by the decision of the Novyy Bug District Council of 14 April 2000. 25.  On 8 June 2004 the Mykolayiv Commercial Court rejected this claim on the ground that neither the decision of the Novyy Bug District Council of 14 April 2000 nor the respective land certificates were found null and void. 26.  On 21 July 2004 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of the Regional Prosecutor lodged in the interest of the applicant on the ground that such a request for eviction was not based on law. 27.  On 12 May 2005 the Mykolayiv Commercial Court rejected the request of the Regional Prosecutor to review the decision of 8 June 2004 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances. 28.  On 6 January and 28 February 2006 the Novyy Bug Court left without consideration the applicant's complaints against the alleged inactivity of the Regional Prosecutor. 29.  The judgment of 4 April 2000 of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court given in the applicant's favour remains unenforced until present.
Administrative proceedings instituted against the applicant 30.  On 1 March 2002 the applicant wanted to attend the session of the Novyy Bug District Council. The applicant alleged that the Head of the Council prevented him from doing so and that the police officer, who was called to take him out from the session room, caused him bodily injuries. 31.  On 13 March 2002 the Novyy Bug Department of the Interior instituted administrative liability proceedings against the applicant as to his allegedly hooligan behaviour during the session of the Novyy Bug District Council. 32.  On 6 April 2002 the Novyy Bug Court acquitted the applicant.