4.  The applicant was born in 1994 and lives in Mykolayiv. 5.  After the death of the applicant’s mother in 1995, Mr Bereslavskiy, the applicant’s maternal grandfather, and his wife were appointed her legal guardians. 6.  In 1996 the family of Mr V.P., the applicant’s father, decided to sell two family apartments, one of them co-owned by the applicant and the other one by two other minors, O.D. and S.D., and to purchase a house. Mr V.P. obtained permission of the tutelage board to sell the applicant’s share in an apartment, having promised in exchange to assign to the applicant a comparable share of the house to be purchased. A similar permission was obtained in respect of the shares owned by the other two minors in the other apartment. 7.  On 15 July 1996 the apartment formerly co-owned by the applicant was sold to Ms S.L.. On 9 October 1996 Ms S.L. sold it on to Mr V.Kh. and Mrs A.Kh. The apartment formerly co-owned by O.D. and S.D. was also sold. However, the newly purchased house was registered solely in the name of Mrs N. P., one of the P. family members. 8.  On 15 September 1997 the Leninsky District Prosecutor of Mykolayiv (Прокурор Ленінського району м. Миколаїва) instituted civil proceedings with the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa (Жовтневий районний суд м. Одеса)[1] on the applicant’s behalf, seeking annulment of the sales contracts in respect of the apartment formerly co-owned by her. Subsequently, the prosecutor orally modified his claims and sought compensation for the applicant’s share in the apartment. 9.  Mr Bereslavskіy took part in the proceedings as the applicant’s statutory agent. Four members of the P. family (the former co-owners of the applicant’s apartment) and Ms S.L., its first buyer, were summoned to the proceedings as defendants. Mr V.Kh. and Mrs A.Kh. were summoned as “third parties” (треті сторони). Subsequently the proceedings were joined with the proceedings brought by the Kominternivsky District Prosecutor of Odessa (Прокурор Комінтернівського району м. Одеса) on behalf of O.D. and S.D. with similar claims concerning the sale of the other apartment. 10.  Between September 1997 and May 1999 the District Court scheduled some twenty hearings with intervals ranging from several days to four months. Ten of these hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of one or more of the individuals taking part in the proceedings, excluding the applicant. Two hearings were postponed on account of various court matters. 11.  On 27 May 1999 the District Court found that the annulment of the sales contracts in respect of the applicant’s apartment would lead to the infringement of interests of the bona fide purchasers and ordered the four former owners of the apartment to pay the applicant 16,342.99 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for her share in the apartment. Mr V.P. appealed in cassation. 12.  On 20 June 2000 the Odessa Regional Court (Одеський обласний суд)[2] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the District Court had failed to examine a number of material circumstances of the case and that the claim concerning compensation instead of the annulment of the contracts had never been properly formalised. 13.  On 16 November 2001 the District Court imposed a fine on Mr V.Kh and Mrs A.Kh. for their repetitive failures to appear for the hearings. 14.  On 27 February 2002 the District Court discontinued proceedings in respect of the claims brought on behalf of O.D. and S.D. on the ground that, having reached the age of majority, they refused to support them. 15.  Between June 2000 and June 2002 the District Court scheduled some fourteen hearings. Eight hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of one or more of the individuals taking part in the proceedings, excluding the applicant. Four hearings were postponed on account of various court matters. No hearings were scheduled between 22 November 2000 and 18 June 2001. 16.  On 3 June 2002 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 22,297 against the four former co-owners of the apartment, in compensation for her share in the apartment, referring to essentially the same grounds as in its previous judgment. The defendants appealed. 17.  On 7 November 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 3 June 2002. Enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment award. After the expiration of the statutory time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal, this judgment became final. 18.  On 19 February 2004, while the enforcement proceedings were still pending, two of the defendants requested renewal of the time-limit for lodging appeal in cassation against the judgment of 3 June 2002. Their request was granted and on 1 April 2004 their cassation appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. 19.  On 15 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ request for leave to appeal in cassation.