7.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Chişinău. 8.  On 22 January 1999 he bought a one-room apartment from X for 13,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 1,500 United States dollars (USD) at the time). Since X did not comply with the applicant's request to vacate the apartment, on 8 June 1999 he brought an action against her, seeking her eviction. X brought a counter action against the applicant, seeking the annulment of the sale contract and restitutio in integrum on the ground that the contract had been vitiated by fraud. 9.  On 16 March 2000 the Centru District Court ruled in favour of X and dismissed the applicant's action. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 6 July 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the Centru District Court, ordered X's eviction from the apartment and dismissed her action. X appealed. 11.  On 3 October 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed X's appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of 6 July 2000. The judgment became final and enforceable. 12.  On 6 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld a Prosecutor General's request for annulment of the judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings before the first-instance court. 13.  On 26 October 2001 the Centru District Court upheld X's action and dismissed the applicant's claims. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 23 January 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the Centru District Court of 26 October 2001, ordered X's eviction from the disputed apartment and dismissed her action. X appealed. 15.  By a final judgment of 18 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed X's appeal. 16.  On 18 April 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of the Chişinău Regional Court of 23 January 2002 and of the Court of Appeal of 18 April 2002. He asked the court to uphold the judgment of the Centru District Court of 26 October 2001. 17.  By a judgment of 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor's request for annulment, quashed the judgment in favour of the applicant and upheld the judgment of the Centru District Court of 26 October 2001. 18.  Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a revision request in respect of the judgment of 29 May 2002 on the ground that the applicant and the Government intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement. 19.  By a judgment of 5 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor's request for revision, quashed its judgment of 29 May 2002 and discontinued the annulment proceedings. The Supreme Court did not order payment of any compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the alleged violations. 20.  On an unspecified date between the quashing of the final judgment in favour of the applicant and the discontinuance of the annulment proceedings X had joined the disputed apartment to another apartment and had substantially reconstructed the newly created apartment. She subsequently sold 1/3 of the joined apartments to a third party. The applicant and the third party have filed actions against each other seeking mainly the recognition of their ownership rights over the disputed apartment. The proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts and the applicant has not been able to move into his apartment to date.