4.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1997, respectively, and live in Kherson. 5.  On 8 November 2000 S., the first applicant’s former husband, lodged a claim with the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson (“the Komsomolskyy Court”) against the first applicant, challenging her right to use a flat. 6.  On 13 November 2000 the Komsomolskyy Court, hearing the case in the absence of the first applicant, allowed the claims of S. and found that the applicant had lost the right to use the disputed flat. The judgment became final. 7.  On 30 November 2000 the first applicant lodged with the Komsomolskyy Court a claim against S. and the Kherson Town Council challenging the right of S. to use the disputed flat. It was subsequently joined to the proceedings instituted against the applicant by S. 8.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged with the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court a protest seeking the annulment of the judgment of 13 November 2000, stating that the case had been heard in the absence of the first applicant who had not been notified of the date and time of the hearing. 9.  On 26 April 2001 the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court allowed the protest, quashed the judgment of 13 November 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 10.  At the hearings on 22 March 2001, 28 February 2002 and 1 April 2004 the first applicant, acting also on behalf of the second applicant, her minor son, lodged additional claims against S. and a number of private persons for compensation for damage based on the same circumstances. She also sought the annulment of the contracts by which the disputed flat had been transferred to those persons. 11.  On 16 October 2001 the Komsomolskyy Court allowed the applicants’ claims in full. It found that S. had lost the right to use the disputed flat and acknowledged the applicants’ right to use it. It obliged the Kherson Town Council to conclude a residential lease agreement with the applicants. 12.  On 5 February 2003 the Kherson Court of Appeal, on an appeal by S. which he had had to resubmit on several occasions because of his failure to comply with procedural requirements, quashed the judgment of 16 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 13.  On 20 July 2004 the Komsomolskyy Court rejected the applicants’ claims. It found that the applicants had voluntarily left the disputed flat in 1997 and subsequently resided elsewhere. The flat was privatised by the first applicant’s former husband. The applicants therefore lost their right to use the disputed flat. 14.  On 12 August 2004 the applicants appealed against the judgment of 20 July 2004. 15.  On 8 December 2004 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of 20 July 2004. 16.  On 11 February 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal in cassation and a request for extension of the relevant time-limit. On 1 March 2005 the Komsomolskyy Court granted the applicants the extension requested. 17.  On 12 May 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case for examination to the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal. 18.  On 2 October 2007 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the ruling of 8 December 2004 and remitted the case for re-consideration by the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, having found that the latter had failed to notify the applicants about the date and time of its hearings. 19.  Following a new consideration on appeal and an examination in cassation, on 11 December 2007 and 9 April 2008, respectively, the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 20 July 2004. 20.  In the course of the proceedings there were forty-one hearings held, of which six were adjourned because of the first applicant’s failure to attend and eighteen because the other parties had failed to attend the hearings.