5.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1978, respectively, and live in Tomsk, Russia. Mrs Olga Yuryeva (“the first applicant”) is the mother of Mr Denis Yuryev (“the second applicant”). 6.  In 1988 the applicants and Y. (the first applicant’s former husband and the second applicant’s father) moved from Tomsk, Russia, to Sevastopol, Ukraine. 7.  According to an agreement signed in February 1995 by Y. and his employer, a construction company M., Y. was to be provided with a two‑room apartment upon payment of 5,000 United States dollars (USD). On an unidentified date the applicants and Y. moved to this apartment and were all registered there as of 29 March 1996. 8.  On an unidentified date between April 1996 and September 1997 the applicants returned to Tomsk allegedly because the second applicant decided to study there. It is unclear whether the applicants visited Sevastopol between April 1996 and July 2000. In June 1999 the first applicant and Y. divorced. 9.  In July 2000 the first applicant came back to Sevastopol but Y. did not let her enter the apartment. 10.  According to a certificate issued on an unclear date of December 2000 by M., as at that date the first applicant was registered and permanently resided together with the second applicant and Y. in the apartment in question. 11.  The first applicant states that between July 2000 and December 2004 she occasionally lived on the street. For the majority of time she worked as a housemaid or as a watchwoman in offices where she also slept at night. Between July 2001 and May 2003 the first applicant lived in a dormitory. 12.  From the materials submitted by the applicants, it appears that the second applicant returned to Sevastopol in July 2001 and left in 2003. During this time he resided in a dormitory together with the first applicant. 13.  Between December 2004 and March 2005 the applicants lived in Tomsk with the first applicant’s father. Between March 2005, when the first applicant again returned to Sevastopol, and March 2006 the first applicant lived in a dormitory and in an utility room of a sport school where she worked. On an unidentified date the first applicant returned to Tomsk. 14.  In August 2000 the applicants instituted proceedings in the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) seeking a ruling to oblige Y. not to hinder the applicants in their use of the apartment and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 28 August 2000 Y. lodged a counterclaim requesting the court to rule that the applicants had lost their right to reside in the apartment. He stated that the applicants had not been residing in the apartment since April 1996 and he had divorced the first applicant in 1999. He also requested the court to inquire before the Russian authorities whether the applicants were registered in the town of Tomsk. 15.  On 6 September 2000 the court decided to consider the above claims jointly. The court sent several requests to various institutions in Tomsk inquiring whether the second applicant was studying in Tomsk and whether applicants were registered there. It also requested the Tomsk Town Court to question three witnesses. In December 2000 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation returned the District Court’s request to question witnesses and indicated that, in accordance with the Convention on Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases signed between several ex‑USSR states, including Russia and Ukraine on 22 January 1993 (Конвенція про правову допомогу та правові відносини у цивільних, сімейних та кримінальних справах від 22 січня 1993 року), all similar requests should be sent via central official bodies. In February 2001 the District Court submitted its request to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The requested information was submitted by the Russian authorities by September 2001. 16.  Between September 2000 and December 2001 no court hearings in the applicants’ case were scheduled. 17.  Between December 2001 and February 2002 there were no hearings since the parties were amending their claims. 18.  Between February 2002 and March 2003 only four hearings took place. Nineteen hearings were cancelled or postponed because the defendant failed to appear (on seven occasions), the first applicant failed to appear (on four occasions) and because the judge was busy in another hearing, was on vacation etc (on eight occasions). 19.  Between March 2002 and April 2006 the applicants requested on numerous occasions to disjoin their claim and the counterclaim as they believed that separately their claim against Y. would be considered quicker. These requests were rejected by the court. The applicants appealed against these decisions although they were not subject to appeal. These appeals were also rejected. In particular, between June 2003 and June 2005 no hearings were scheduled since the applicants’ appeal against one of such decisions (the decision of 27 January 2003 by which the District Court refused to accept the applicant’s appeal against its refusal of 29 December 2002 to disjoin the claims) was examined by the courts of appeal and cassation and was rejected. 20.  On 7 June 2005 Y. requested to postpone the hearing since he was absent. 21.  In August 2005 the applicants requested to postpone hearings until October. 22.  Between October 2005 and April 2006 eight hearings were scheduled. According to the Government, four of them did not take place “for technical reasons”. Y.’s representative requested to postpone the next hearing. Next three hearings were adjourned since the parties failed to appear. 23.  On 5 April 2006 the court considered the merits of the case and found against the applicants. The case was considered in the applicants’ absence. The court found that Y. and his parents but not the applicants had signed an apartment construction agreement with M. The court further found that between August 1997 and June 1999 the second applicant was studying in Tomsk. The first applicant was working in Tomsk between September 1996 and April 2000. According to other evidence, the first applicant was living in Tomsk since summer 1997. The court disregarded the witnesses’ statements inter alia since “they had been given on the territory of another State by the first applicant’s close friends”. Since “there were no serious reasons for the applicants to be absent in the apartment for more than six months”, the court concluded that the applicants had lost their right to reside in this apartment. 24.  On 18 May 2006 the court rejected the applicants’ request that the judgment of 5 April 2006 be reconsidered as the applicants had been informed in a proper manner about the hearings in their case. 25.  On 30 October 2006 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal left an appeal by the applicants against the judgment of 5 April 2006 unexamined on the ground that they had failed to pay the fee to lodge their appeal. 26.  On 30 January 2001 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court against the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service, M., and Y., claiming her property right to the apartment and challenging the Bailiffs’ Service’s decision to attach it. In particular, the first applicant claimed that she had a property right for the apartment in question since she had been married to Y. when he had bought this apartment. 27.  On 22 February 2001 the District Court allowed a request by the first applicant to delay payment of the fee for bringing her claim. 28.  By letter of 29 May 2001 the District Court noted that the second applicant was also a claimant in this case. 29.  On 20 September 2002 the court found that the apartment was owned by the enterprise M. since Y. had failed to pay the amount specified in the construction agreement in full and he had lived in the apartment in question as a tenant. Therefore the first applicant had no property rights to this apartment. Moreover, the Bailiffs’ Service had not taken any action in respect of the apartment. 30.  On 12 February 2004 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 20 September 2002. In a court hearing Y. stated that he was a tenant, that it was his father who had paid 2,200 USD under the construction agreement and that he had failed to pay the rest. 31.  On 23 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the first applicant’s appeal in cassation. 32.  In October 2000 the applicants instituted proceedings in the court against Y., seeking division of the marital property. 33.  On 18 January 2001 the court left the applicants’ claim unexamined on the ground that the applicants had failed to pay the fee for bringing their claim. The applicants appealed against this ruling, stating that they could not pay the fee since they had no means. On 6 March 2001 the Sevastopol City Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal as the applicants had failed to prove their statement about lack of means. 34.  In June 2002 the applicants re-lodged their claim with the court, seeking division of the marital property. On 9 July 2002 the court left the claim unexamined and returned it to the applicants since the applicants had failed to comply with procedural formalities; inter alia, they had failed to pay the fee for bringing their claim. 35.  In September 2002 the applicants lodged their claim again. On 17 October 2002 the court left the claim unexamined since the applicants had failed to pay the fee for bringing it. 36.  The applicants missed time-limits for lodging appeals against the rulings of 9 July and 17 October 2002. Subsequently, on several occasions the applicants unsuccessfully sought domestic courts to renew time-limits for lodging appeals against the rulings of 9 July and 17 October 2002. The court and the Sevastopol Court of Appeal refused to renew the time-limits on several occasions and rejected subsequent appeals against these refusals. The last relevant decision in this respect submitted by the applicants is the ruling of the court of 11 March 2005. 37.  The applicants state that they unsuccessfully attempted to institute several administrative proceedings against the judges of the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol who considered their cases (see the above proceedings). The applicants failed to provide this Court with precise information concerning these claims and eventual appeals. The only court rulings they submitted are the ruling of the Sevastopol Court of Appeal of 10 March 2006 and the ruling of the Balaklava District Court of Sevastopol of 10 May 2006. By these rulings the courts refused to consider the applicants’ claims since they had no jurisdiction to consider them. 38.  The first applicant further states that in November 2001 she lodged a complaint with the court seeking to institute criminal proceedings against Y., who had allegedly inflicted physical injuries on her. The first applicant states that the court rejected her claim and she did not appeal against this ruling.