4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  The applicant inherited a 300 sq. m plot of land situated in Eforie Sud at 11 Vlad Ţepeş Street. 6.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings to have removed an electrical transformer which occupied 25 sq. m of her land or to be allocated land in the neighbouring plot. She submitted that her intent was to build a house, but she had not obtained an authorisation to build on that land because of that transformer. 7.  On 18 March 2002 the Constanţa District Court, considering that the applicant was prevented from enjoying the prerogatives conferred by her right of property, ordered the local administrative authorities to give her in compensation a plot of land with the same area and characteristics as her land. That judgment became final. 8.  On 22 April 2003 the Constanţa District Court, at the applicant’s request, ordered the local administrative authorities to pay a pecuniary penalty for each day’s delay in enforcement of that judgment. 9.  On 15 December 2003 the local council decided to compensate the applicant with land in another location than the plot adjacent to her land. The applicant sought annulment of that decision and on 19 May 2005 the Constanţa County Court allowed her action, considering that the land offered to the applicant was not equivalent to her land. Therefore it ordered the local administrative authorities to allocate the applicant another plot of 300 sq. m of land with the same characteristics as her land, as provided by the judgment of 18 March 2002. That judgment became final. 10.  On 30 November 2005, at the applicant’s request, the Constanţa District Court, by an interlocutory decision, declared that the judgment of 19 May 2005 could be enforced. On 22 December 2005 the bailiff ordered the local administrative authorities to issue a new decision allowing the applicant to take possession of 300 sq. m of land as provided by the judgment of 18 March 2002. 11.  On 17 March 2006 the local council decided to draw up evaluation reports in respect of the applicant’s land and of a plot of 676.67 sq. m in a different location. The applicant declined that offer, considering that the land proposed had not the same characteristics as her land. 12.  On 10 April 2006 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the mayor alleging abuse of authority and non-compliance with court decisions. On 18 April 2007 she requested the prosecutor to inform her about the solution. On 21 February 2008 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending. 13.  On 8 August 2006 the town council decided to draw up evaluation reports in respect of the applicant’s land and of the same area of land in the neighbouring plot. 14.  In 2008 the local administrative authorities informed the applicant that they would compensate her with land from the plot adjacent to her land. 15.  By a decision of 31 July 2009 the town council ordered compensation with land from the neighbouring plot. The applicant agreed with that decision. 16.  So far the applicant has not received an ownership title for the land allocated in compensation.