4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Poltava. 5.  In August 1991 the applicant with her minor son moved to Poltava from their town found to be contaminated as a result of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster. They were housed in a State hostel. 6.  In June 1992 the applicant was placed on a waiting list for obtaining free housing as a victim of the Chornobyl disaster. 7.  In July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings at the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Poltava (“the Zhovtnevyy Court”) against the local authorities seeking allocation of a free flat. 8.  On 28 February 2001 the Zhovtnevyy Court ruled that the applicant should be provided with free housing under the conditions prescribed by law and according to her place in the waiting list. 9.  On 29 March 2001 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 – the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, hereinafter – “the Poltava Regional Court”) upheld this judgment. 10.  On 23 May 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the above ruling for some procedural shortcomings and remitted the case for fresh examination to the appellate court. 11.  On 27 June 2002 the Poltava Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal again. 12.  Between July 2002 and April 2003 the courts at two levels considered the admissibility of the appeal in cassation lodged by the applicant. In April 2003 she submitted a rectified appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court. 13.  On 11 December 2003 the Supreme Court started the proceedings. 14.  On 12 May 2005 it rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. 15.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Zhovtnevyy Court against the Poltava City Council seeking free housing as a matter of priority. 16.  From 8 July 2004 to 29 June 2005 these proceedings were stayed at the applicant’s request, pending the outcome of the first set of the proceedings. 17.  On 8 February 2006 the Zhovtnevyy Court rejected the claim as being without basis. The applicant appealed. 18.  On 15 May 2006 the Poltava Regional Court allowed her appeal in part. It quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court, having held however that it fell to be examined under the civil rather than the administrative procedure. 19.  On 28 November 2007 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the aforementioned ruling and remitted the case to the appellate court with a conclusion that it was civil and not administrative. 20.  On 5 August 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kharkiv Regional Court”), to which the case was referred on an unspecified date, found against the applicant. 21.  On 2 February 2011 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions.