4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  She owned and occupied a 15 square metre room in a communal flat in St Petersburg. In 1999 she decided to change her room, which was located on the fifth floor, to a similar room on the ground floor which would better suit her deteriorated state of health. Mr B. offered his help in improving her housing situation. Since it was impossible, according to the law, to pass over the owners of the remaining rooms in the same flat holding pre-empting rights, in order to sell the room to an individual found by Mr B., the applicant signed on 5 September 1999, following Mr B.’s advice and explanations by the notary, an agreement for the transfer of her room as a gift while in reality she sold it. Mr B. disappeared with the money after the deal. The applicant managed to occupy her room again. She learned that the room had meanwhile been sold to another individual K. who then died. 6.  On 8 September 2000 the applicant requested the police to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr B. The police advised her to apply to a court. 7.  On 14 September 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the buyer before the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg claiming that the agreement was null and void and requesting the restitution. As her application did not comply with formal requirements she was requested to correct the defects before 18 September 2000. It appears that she did so and on 21 September 2000 the judge issued a ruling on the preparation of the case for examination according to which the judge was to meet the parties on 16 November 2000. 8.  On 3 March 2003 the case was assigned to another judge who scheduled a hearing for 16 May 2003. On that day the judge imposed an arrest on the disputed property and adjourned the examination of the case to 29 October 2003 due to the failure of the respondent and the notary to appear and the need to join to the proceedings K.’s heir as a third party. On 29 October 2003 the examination of the case was adjourned to 29 April 2004 for reasons related to the judge’s workload. 9.  On an unspecified date K.’s heir brought proceedings against the applicant seeking for her eviction from the room. On 29 April 2004 those proceedings were joined with the proceedings in the applicant’s case and the hearing was scheduled for 10 November 2004. On that date the court heard the parties and K.’s heir, adjourned the hearing to 26 January 2005 and ordered that certain additional evidence should be collected. 10.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant was represented by Mr Romanov who requested that the hearing be adjourned to enable him to examine the case file. The hearing was adjourned to 22 June 2005. 11.  On 22 June 2005 the court heard the parties, K.’s heir and witnesses. The applicant’s counsel Mr Romanov was ordered to leave the courtroom. According to him, the judge did so because, despite the judge’s reluctance, he kept on requesting the court’s order for obtaining certain documents as evidence. According to a letter of 24 May 2006 from the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office to Mr Romanov, the judge did so in response to Mr Romanov’s refusal to stand when addressing the court, as was required by the procedural rules. Mr Romanov unsuccessfully tried to bring criminal proceedings against the judge. 12.  The examination of the case was adjourned to 23 November 2005 under K.’s heir’s request. On the latter date the applicant and her counsel failed to appear and the hearing was postponed to 29 March 2006. 13.  In a judgment of 29 March 2006 the District Court found that the applicant had not given her room as a gift but had sold it. Therefore she had lost her rights to the room including the right to occupy it. The court ordered her eviction. It noted that the applicant could have brought proceedings against Mr B. but had not done so. 14.  The applicant did not appeal against the judgment within ten days of the delivery of the judgment on 4 April 2006 in its final form and the judgment became final on 14 April 2006 by virtue of Articles 209 § 1 and 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15.  On 30 May 2006 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 5 June 2006 the District Court held that the appeal was time-barred. Mr Romanov appealed against that decision. On 23 August 2006 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision of 5 June 2006. The applicant’s further appeal by way of supervisory review was dismissed on 6 February 2007. 16.  On 29 August 2007 the St Petersburg Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings and ordered the applicant to vacate the room. According to the latest available information, the enforcement proceedings are pending.