4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Kamyshin in the Volgograd Region. 5.  On 23 April 2002 the Tsentralny District Court of Volgograd allowed the applicant’s claim for housing aid and awarded her 209,550 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance. The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to thirty-three square metres (sq. m), and that the average price per sq. m in the region at the relevant time was RUB 6,350. 6.  The parties did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 4 May 2002. 7.  On 28 May 2002 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the local office of the Ministry of Finance. 8.  By letter of 24 October 2002, in response to the applicant’s query about the state of enforcement proceedings, the Ministry advised her that an application for supervisory review of the above judgment had been lodged. 9.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service. 10.  On 6 December 2002 the bailiff returned the writ to the District Court because it had failed to set out its period of validity. On 17 January 2003 the District Court sent the corrected writ to the bailiff. 11.  On 28 February 2003 the bailiff opened enforcement proceedings. He discontinued them on 12 May 2003 because the bailiffs’ service was not competent to enforce judgments against the State. He advised the applicant to submit her writ of execution to the Ministry. 12.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to rectify an error in the writ. On 1 July 2003 the District Court forwarded the rectified writ to the applicant. It was marked “duplicate”. 13.  On 22 July 2003 the applicant submitted it to the Ministry. 14.  On 9 September 2004 the District Court sent the Ministry a new version of the writ, without the note “duplicate”. It explained that the court secretary had marked the previous writ as “duplicate” by mistake. On 15 September 2004 the applicant also submitted to the Ministry the rectified writ, without the “duplicate” mark. She referred to the District Court’s explanations of 9 September 2004. The Ministry received the applicant’s writ on 22 September 2004. 15.  By letter of 8 October 2004, the Ministry requested the applicant to explain why she had submitted a duplicate of the writ. 16.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received the sum of money awarded to her under the judgment of 23 April 2002.