6.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Baku. 7.  She owned a three-room apartment in Baku. In 1991, after getting married, the applicant’s son and his wife (G.R.) moved into the applicant’s apartment. After some time, the applicant’s relations with G.R. started to deteriorate. For this reason, the family decided to divide the apartment, with two rooms taken by the applicant and the remaining one room by her son and G.R. 8.  In 1995 they decided to sell the apartment, divide the proceeds and live separately thereafter. After the sale of the apartment, the applicant used her part of the proceeds to purchase herself a new, smaller apartment, where she began to live alone. Her son and G.R. used their part of the proceeds to pay off their debts and resided temporarily in various places. 9.  According to the applicant, in 1996 her son asked her to temporarily register him and his family in her new apartment as co-residents. He explained that without proper residence documents he was unable to get a job. The applicant allowed her son and G.R. to register temporarily, for a term of one year, as co-residents in her apartment. However, according to the applicant, pursuant to their agreement, her son and G.R. never moved in and never lived in the apartment. Later, the applicant successfully applied for their removal from the relevant registration records. 10.  In 2001 the applicant’s son and G.R. divorced. They had two children who appear to have stayed in G.R.’s custody. 11.  In 2000 G.R. filed a lawsuit, claiming the right to reside in the applicant’s apartment with her children and requesting the court to order their re-registration in the apartment as the applicant’s co-residents. On 24 July 2000 the Narimanov District Court upheld G.R.’s claim and recognised her and her children’s residence rights to the apartment. 12.  Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 29 August 2000 the Baku City Court (the court of cassation under the old civil procedure laws effective at that time) quashed the district court’s judgment, finding that it had not assessed all the relevant facts of the case. The case was remitted for re-trial at the first instance. 13.  After re-trial, on 8 December 2000 the Narimanov District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour and dismissed G.R.’s claims. It found that G.R. had failed to produce sufficient evidence supporting her claims to the apartment. 14.  On 27 March 2001 the Court of Appeal, in the absence of the applicant, set aside the district court’s second judgment and ruled in G.R.’s favour. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, it determined that G.R. had permanent registration in the disputed apartment and, therefore, had residence rights. 15.  Upon the applicant’s appeal in cassation, on 4 July 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It found that the Court of Appeal had breached the procedural rules by hearing the case in the applicant’s absence. Furthermore, it found that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider certain crucial facts, including the fact that G.R. had allegedly never resided in the disputed apartment. The case was remitted back to the Court of Appeal for re-examination. 16.  On 11 October 2001 the Court of Appeal found that G.R.’s registration in the disputed apartment had been temporary, that she had never lived there and never engaged in joint household activities with the applicant. Thus, relying on the relevant provisions of the Housing Code, the court held that G.R. had never acquired residence rights to the apartment. Accordingly, it dismissed G.R.’s appeal and upheld the district court’s ruling of 8 December 2000 in favour of the applicant. 17.  On 11 January 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s decision became final and enforceable upon its delivery. 18.  Having disagreed with the outcome of the proceedings in the domestic courts, G.R. filed an additional cassation appeal asking for a review of the Supreme Court’s final decision by the Plenum of the Supreme Court (“the Plenum”). By a letter of 14 May 2002, the President of the Supreme Court rejected G.R.’s request, finding no grounds for reopening the proceedings in the Plenum and confirming the correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision. 19.  However, contrary to the rejection letter of 14 May 2002 and under circumstances unknown to the applicant, on 19 July 2002 the case was actually referred to and reviewed by the Plenum. At that time, more than six months had passed from the Supreme Court’s decision of 11 January 2002. 20.  The Plenum noted that the main argument for the lower courts’ decisions in the applicant’s favour had been that G.R. and her children had never lived in the apartment. It deemed that, under domestic law, this fact was an insufficient basis for adjudging the case in the applicant’s favour. The Plenum further found that the lower courts had misapplied the domestic law and failed to establish the facts necessary for applying the appropriate legal provisions. It held that, instead, it would be proper to apply Articles 60 and 87 of the Housing Code, as well as the decision of the Constitutional Court of 12 March 1999 on the interpretation of Article 60 of the Housing Code. In accordance with these provisions, the Plenum found that the facts of the case did not establish grounds for G.R.’s loss of residence rights to the apartment. 21.  In conclusion, the Plenum “varied” the Supreme Court’s decision of 11 January 2002 and ordered that G.R. and her children be allowed to move into the applicant’s apartment. 22.  On 8 January 2005 the applicant sold the apartment to G.R. The sale contract was certified by a notary public. According to the contract, the purchase price was 140,000,000 Azerbaijani manats. On 24 February 2005 G.R. obtained an ownership certificate to the apartment as its sole owner. 23.  It appears that the applicant moved out of the apartment after the sale and established residence elsewhere. 24.  In October 2006 the applicant challenged the validity of the sale contract of 8 January 2005 in the domestic courts. She relied on two arguments. First, she argued that she had not known that she was signing a contract concerning the sale of the apartment, because G.R. had lied to her about the nature of the contract. Second, the applicant argued that the contract had been drafted in the new Latin alphabet[1], which she allegedly did not know how to read. 25.  Following a series of appeals, on 20 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ ruling dismissing the applicant’s claim. It held that the claim was unsubstantiated as there was sufficient evidence in the case file proving that the sale contract was valid and that she had sold and moved out of the apartment voluntarily. It found that the contract had been duly concluded in the presence of a notary public. The court further noted that, shortly after the sale, the applicant applied for the removal of her name from the apartment’s registration documents and that, from 4 April 2005, she had been registered as a resident of another apartment pursuant to her own application. It further noted the existence of documentary evidence showing that, after the sale, G.R. and her children were registered as residents in the disputed apartment and that G.R. paid all the communal charges for the apartment.