6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Baku. 7.  By an order of the Narimanov District Executive Authority (“NDEA”) of 2 June 1993, the applicant was issued, under the state housing policy, an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to a three-room apartment in a state-owned residential building in Baku. The applicant did not move into her new apartment at that time, because the construction of the building had not been completely finished and the tenants had to undertake the repair works in their respective apartments at their own expense. 8.  In 1997, pursuant to an oral agreement, the applicant allowed R., an acquaintance of hers, to use the apartment temporarily, free of charge. Under the arrangement reached by the parties, R. was to use the apartment in exchange for certain repair works that he would perform using the materials provided by the applicant. In addition, R. agreed to vacate the apartment whenever the applicant made such a demand. 9.  Some unspecified time later, in breach of the existing oral agreement, R. allowed his relative H. and his family (hereinafter to be collectively referred to as “H.”) to move into and live in the apartment. H. were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Agdam, a region under control of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. 10.  When the applicant found out that her apartment was occupied by people unknown to her, she requested that they vacate it. However, H. refused to do so, stating that they had no other place to live. The applicant filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to evict H. from the apartment. 11.  On 29 March 2000 the Nizami District Court granted the applicant's request. The court found that, prior to moving into the disputed apartment, H. had been living in the Barda Region and in the Khatai District of Baku where they had been registered as IDPs. They did not dispute the fact that they had settled in the apartment in 1997. The court further found that the applicant was the lawful tenant of the apartment and, as such, had a right to demand H. to vacate it. The court ordered that H. be evicted. H. appealed. 12.  On 30 September 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the district court's judgment. The court held that NDEA's order to issue an occupancy voucher to a partly constructed building had been in breach of the requirements of the domestic law. The court further held that the applicant had not concluded a social tenancy agreement concerning the apartment and, therefore, she could not have a valid claim to it. The court therefore quashed the first-instance court's order to evict H. from the apartment. 13.  The applicant filed an appeal in cassation. On 13 December 2002 the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and partially upheld the applicant's request. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal erred in judging on the validity of the applicant's occupancy voucher. It held that the applicant's tenancy rights were undisputed and that the proceedings only concerned H.'s right to remain in the applicant's apartment. The Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's decision in this part. 14.  The Supreme Court further ruled that H. should vacate the applicant's apartment. However, taking into account the fact that H. could not return to their permanent place of residence in Agdam and, in the meantime, had no other place in which to reside, the Court held that the execution of its decision should be postponed until they could return to Agdam. 15.  Thereafter, based on the applicant's additional cassation appeal, the proceedings were reopened and on 27 January 2005 the Plenum of the Supreme Court quashed the Supreme Court's decision of 13 December 2002. The Plenum noted that, having found errors in the Court of Appeal's judgment, the Supreme Court had no competence under civil procedure law to deliver a new judgment on the merits and, instead, was obliged to quash the Court of Appeal's judgment and refer the case for re-examination by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the Plenum found that, although the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court were essentially correct, it had breached the procedural rules by delivering a new judgment on the merits. The Plenum remitted the case to the Court of Appeal. 16.  On 7 April 2005 the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment identical to the Supreme Court's decision of 13 December 2002. It ruled that H. should vacate the applicant's apartment. It further held as follows:
“... the claim of V.B. Akimova must be upheld; however, having regard to the fact that the defendants are internally displaced persons from the Agdam Region and do not have another place in which to reside, the execution of the judgment shall be postponed until the Agdam Region is liberated from occupation.” 17.  At present, Agdam remains under the control of Armenian forces and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unresolved. At the time of the latest communication with the parties, H. was still living in the applicant's apartment.