5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Kalush, Ukraine. 6.  In 1996 a private person, B., lent the applicant approximately 12,266 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (which at the material time, according to the applicant, corresponded to 4,500 United States dollars), with the applicant’s four-room apartment as security. As the applicant was not able to return the sum, in October 1997 the State Bailiffs’ Service held an auction and the apartment in question was bought by B. On 19 November 1997 the applicant and her four adult sons were evicted from the apartment. According to the applicant, since then they have been living “in a half ruined building”. 7.  On 19 July 2002 the Kalush Local Court considered the applicant’s complaint against the Bailiffs’ Service and found that the auction and the applicant’s eviction had been in breach of the law. The court found that since the applicant had nowhere to live the Bailiffs’ Service should return the apartment in question to her immediately. 8.  On 24 July 2002 the applicant requested the Bailiffs’ Service to enforce the decision of 19 July 2002 and submitted a copy to them. 9.  On 13 August 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service refused to institute enforcement proceedings as the applicant had failed to present a writ of enforcement. 10.  In June 2000 the applicant and her four sons instituted proceedings in the Kalush Local Court against K. (who lived in the apartment in question, allegedly renting it from B.) and B., and requested the court to restore their apartment to them. On 28 May 2003 the court found for the plaintiffs. It ordered the apartment in question to be restored to the applicants and further ordered B. and K. not to hinder the plaintiffs in using their apartment. On 31 July 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 17 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine returned B.’s cassation appeal as it had not been submitted in compliance with procedural requirements. 11.  On 21 August 2003 enforcement proceedings were instituted. 12.  According to the Government, on 18 November 2003 the applicant requested the staying the enforcement proceedings. The parties did not provide a copy of this request. 13.  By a letter of 1 December 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that on 28 November 2003 the enforcement proceedings had been stayed, following her request, since “the case concerning the eviction of the third parties who lived in the apartment in question was pending before the court”. The enforcement proceedings were resumed on 5 October 2005. 14.  On 24 January 2006 the apartment was allegedly restored to the applicant. The applicant, however, stated that she had not been given the keys to the apartment and had not been able to stay there. 15.  On 25 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated. The applicant did not appeal against the decision. 16.  In November 2001 the applicant and two of her sons, R. and V., instituted proceedings against B. requesting him to return their personal belongings which had been left in the apartment. On 26 December 2002 the Kalush Local Court, in B.’s absence, found for the plaintiffs and awarded them UAH 37,939 for pecuniary damage and UAH 60,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The decision became final as no appeal had been lodged against it, and enforcement proceedings were instituted. 17.  On 20 June 2003 B. requested the court to provide him with a copy of the decision of 26 December 2002. 18.  On 22 October 2003 B. received a copy of the decision and requested the renewal of the time-limit for lodging an appeal since he had not been informed about the court hearing on 26 December 2002. 19.  On 31 October 2003 the Kalush Local Court rejected his request. It found that on 30 December 2002 a copy of the court decision of 26 December 2002 had been sent to the address indicated by B. in one of his applications to the court, that is, to the address of the applicant’s apartment. 20.  B. appealed, stating that he had indicated another address and had learned about the decision of 26 December 2002 only when enforcement proceedings had been instituted. 21.  On 17 December 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 31 October 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. No copy of this decision has been provided. On 29 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 17 December 2003. 22.  On 1 February 2006 the Kalush Local Court decided to accept B.’s appeal against the decision of 26 December 2002. On 27 February 2006 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal similarly concluded that B.’s appeal had been lodged in compliance with procedural requirements. 23.  On 22 March 2006 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 December 2002 as having been given in the absence of the defendant, and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court found that between October and December 2002 there had been six court hearings that B. had not been informed about. The court also decided that B. had not been properly informed about the court hearing of 26 December 2002 “since he denied being present in the court on 11 December 2002 [when the court summons had allegedly been served on him] and he contested his signature on the court summons, which differed from his signature on other documents”. 24.  On 11 April 2006 the applicant’s claims for the return of her property were left unexamined by the court. The applicant did not submit a copy of this decision so it is unclear whether she had withdrawn her claims or they were left unexamined for another reason. 25.  On 2 August 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 22 March 2006. The Supreme Court in its decision referred to the applicant as a party. 26.  On 28 December 2006 the Kalush Local Court found for B. In that judgment the applicant’s two sons were referred to as plaintiffs and the applicant herself was referred to as their representative. 27.  On 16 May 2007 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 28 December 2006, found in part for the applicant’s two sons, and awarded them UAH 21,953 in damages. On 1 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that decision. 28.  In March 2007 one of the applicant’s sons was found dead. The cause of death was given as hypothermia, whereas the applicant believes that her son was killed. 29.  On 13 June 2008 the Kalush Local Court awarded B. UAH 15,822.98, to be paid by the applicant in compensation for loss incurred as a result of the failure to repay the loan of 1996. The applicant’s three sons were also to pay B. UAH 7,911.47 each. That judgment was upheld on 15 October 2008 and 30 March 2009 by the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine respectively.