4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  In December 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against Mr S. (her neighbour), alleging that he had unlawfully seized and re-designed a corridor (measuring approximately 4 square meters) in their shared house. 6.  On 28 December 1998 the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the District Court”) allowed the applicant's claim. She was awarded the ownership of the disputed corridor and Mr S. was ordered to restore its original design. 7.  On 17 May 1999 the District Court, at the applicant's request, quashed its decision of 28 December 1998 due to new circumstances (namely, that the shared house had historical value) and reopened the proceedings. 8.  On 19 August 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant's claim, declared the corridor in question to be the applicant's property and ordered Mr S. to remove the unauthorised changes in the corridor's design. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 29 August 1999. 9.  Enforcement proceedings commenced in October 1999. 10.  On 8 February 2001, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged a supervisory protest (an extraordinary appeal) against the judgment of 19 August 1999 on the ground that the first instance court had erred in its assessment of evidence and in the application of the law. 11.  The protest was examined on 26 February 2001 by the Presidium of the Kyiv City Court. Having accepted the reasons advanced by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, the Presidium quashed the judgment 19 August 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 12.  On 3 July 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim due to her failure to pay in full the State tax for the introduction of the complaint. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.