4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Yakutsk in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. 5.  On 4 October 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered that the Yakutsk Town Council should provide the applicant with a well-equipped one-room flat. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 19 October 2002. 6.  On 13 January 2003 the Yakutsk mayor's office took over the functions of the Town Council because the latter had ceased to exist as a legal entity. 7.  The applicant asked the Yakutsk Town Court to impose on the Yakutsk mayor's office the obligation to enforce the judgment of 4 October 2002. On 26 August 2003 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the request because she had not provided any evidence that the mayor's office was the successor to the Town Council. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment. 8.  On 10 October 2003 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the applicant's request for immediate enforcement of the judgment of 4 October 2002. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 17 November 2003. 9.  On 30 March 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the applicant's request, amended the judgment of 4 October 2002 and ordered that the Yakutsk mayor's office should enforce it. 10.  On 28 December 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court once again amended the judgment of 4 October 2002 and ordered that the Yakutsk mayor's office should pay the applicant 700,000 Russian roubles in lieu of the flat. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 11.  On 7 April 2006 the Yakutsk mayor's office credited RUR 700,000 to the bailiffs' account. In June 2006 the bailiffs sent a letter to the applicant informing her about the transaction and asking to provide details of her bank account. According to the Government, the applicant did not respond. The bailiffs also attempted to personally serve the applicant with the letter, but she could not be found at her place of residence. 12.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs learned the details of the applicant's bank account and on 4 September 2006 they credited RUR 700,000 to it.
 B.  Proceedings concerning restoration of the heating supply 13.  In 1994 a housing maintenance company cut off the heating in the applicant's flat. The applicant sued the company seeking restoration of the heating supply and compensation for damage. 14.  On 8 December 1999 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in the final instance, partly accepted the action. The maintenance company restored the heating. 15.  The judgment of 8 December 1999 was quashed by way of a supervisory review on 25 October 2001 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination. 16.  On 18 November 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,845 in compensation. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 December 2002. 17.  The applicant sued the Yakutsk Town Council claiming compensation for damage caused to her flat due to the absence of the heating. 18.  On 28 August 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the action because the municipal authorities had not been responsible for the damage. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 7 October 2002.