5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kostroma. 6.  On 22 September 2002 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma allowed the applicant's action against the Kostroma Regional Government and awarded him 178,752 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 5,500 euros) as financial aid for housing construction. The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to 29.4 square metres of surface, and that the average market price per square metre in Kostroma was RUR 6,080. 7.  On 20 November 2002 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment became enforceable. 8.  The applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On 4 March 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings. 9.  On 26 March 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because, according to the domestic law, the writs against the regional governments were to be submitted to the Federal Treasury. 10.  The applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local office of the Federal Treasury. On 3 April 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs' service. 11.  On 7 April 2003 the bailiffs' service for a second time opened enforcement proceedings. On 6 June 2003 it discontinued the proceedings. 12.  In November 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. On 18 November 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the award because it did not consider itself liable for the debts of the Kostroma Regional Government. The applicant challenged that decision before a court.  On 10 November 2004 the Kostroma Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims in the final instance as having no basis in the domestic law. 13.  The applicant re-submitted the writ of execution to the bailiff's service. On 27 November 2003 the bailiffs' service for a third time opened enforcement proceedings. 14.  On 27 September 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. 15.  The judgment of 22 September 2002 has remained unenforced to date.