6.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Voronezh. 7.  In 1982 a municipal authority registered the applicant on the waiting list for war veterans in need of improved housing conditions (“the housing list”). 8.  On 3 March 1995 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh (“the District Court”) gave judgment in the applicant’s favour, obliging the Administration of Voronezh (“the town council”) to:
“... allocate a separate well-furnished flat for rent to [the applicant] for her whole family as from the date of the provision of the flat with living space of no less than nine square metres per person, with account to be taken of [the applicant’s] right to additional living space and the possibility of providing a flat located close to her daughter’s residence at 5 Komarova Street, Voronezh ...” 9.  On 11 April 1995 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment on appeal and on the same date it became binding. 10.  On 3 May 1995 the District Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution (no. 2-286/95) and on an unspecified date bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. 11.  On 29 June 1995, 13 October 1995 and 2 February 1996 the town council was fined for failure to enforce the judgment of 3 March 1995. 12.  On 14 August 1995 the Voronezh expert medical commission registered the applicant as Category 2 disabled and declared her unfit for work. On the same day a municipal authority registered the applicant on another waiting list, this time for disabled war veterans in need of improved housing conditions. 13.  On 26 February 1996 the Presidium of the Regional Court by way of supervisory review supplemented the judgment of 3 March 1995, by adding the words “in order of priority” to the operative provisions quoted above (see paragraph 8 above). On 16 May 1996 the Regional Court explained to the applicant that the amendment did not mean that the town council had been released from its obligation to enforce the judgment. Rather, it meant that its enforcement became dependent upon the moment she moved from third to first place on the housing list. 14.  On 6 March 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court by way of supervisory review supplemented the operative part of the judgment for a second time, with the words “in order of priority among those entitled to obtain housing on preferential terms”. 15.  By an order (no. 41) of the head of the Administration of the Sovetskiy District of Voronezh (“the district council”) dated 18 January 2000, the applicant was provided with a two-room flat at 257, 3 Putilovskaya Street (hereinafter “Flat 1”) measuring 55.17 square metres with 30.76 square metres of living space, for a family of three (the applicant, her son and her grandson). By the same order the applicant was struck off the housing list. 16.  The applicant refused to participate in the privatisation of Flat 1 in favour of one of her two grandsons, Mr A.A. Stetsenko. On 23 March 2006 title to the flat was transferred, by way of privatisation, to him. On 30 June 2009 he signed an agreement gifting Flat 1 to his father, the applicant’s son, Mr A.M. Stetsenko, who remains its current owner. 17.  The head of the district council amended his order no. 41 (see paragraph 15 above) on two occasions: on 17 October 2000 the applicant was reinstated to the housing list, and on 7 April 2004 she was struck off it again. 18.  On 13 May 2002 the Voronezh neuropsychology clinic informed the district council that: a) since 1989 the applicant had been under psychiatric supervision, and b) because she suffered from a psychiatric condition she had the right to additional living space. 19.  By a judgment of 13 May 2002 the District Court ordered the town council to offer housing to the applicant with due regard to be taken of the date of her placement on the housing list as well as the benefits she was entitled to. 20.  It follows from an extract from the housing register issued for the applicant on 14 April 2003 that Flat 1 was occupied by five members of her family and had 30.9 square metres of living space. 21.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the orders according to which she had been struck off the housing list. By a judgment of 7 September 2004 the District Court reinstated her to the list on the grounds that Flat 1 was provided to her without due regard being taken of her right to additional living space. 22.  The authorities informed the applicant on 11 March 2005 that she was first on the housing list, and on 14 September 2006 that she had actually moved to first place on 19 December 2003. 23.  It follows from the materials in the case file that between November 2002 and May 2005 the authorities allocated flats to twenty‑three people on the housing list, the largest of these flats being a four-room property with 64.62 square metres of living space. 24.  On 22 July 2005 the Bailiff Service informed the applicant that they could not enforce the judgment of 3 March 1995 because they had not received the writ of execution. 25.  On 4 August 2005 the applicant lodged an application with the District Court requesting it to issue a duplicate copy of the writ. The court sent a request for information regarding the applicant’s case file to the Bailiff Service. They replied on 31 August 2005 stating that they could not provide the information requested since the archives containing case files predating 1999 had been destroyed. 26.  On 23 September 2005 the District Court ordered a duplicate copy of the writ to be issued on the grounds that the original had been lost. At an appeal hearing on 8 November 2005, the Regional Court quashed the lower court’s ruling and remitted the case for fresh examination because it had failed to take into consideration other court proceedings the applicant was involved in concerning the provision of housing to her. Those proceedings ended on 31 October 2005 when the District Court gave judgment ordering the authorities to provide the applicant with another flat. 27.  On 17 January 2006 the District Court suspended the proceedings until the judgment of 31 October 2005 became binding. At an appeal hearing on 14 February 2006 the Regional Court found that the grounds for the suspension of the proceedings were no longer valid since the judgment of 31 October 2005 had been quashed on appeal on 19 January 2006, but upheld the lower court’s ruling. 28.  On 13 March 2006 the District Court found that the judgment of 31 October 2005 had been quashed on appeal and resumed the proceedings. On 12 April 2006 it suspended them again, on the grounds that the Regional Court, which had quashed the judgment of 31 October 2005, had remitted the case to it for fresh consideration. At an appeal hearing on 30 May 2006 the Regional Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. 29.  On 14 February 2007 the District Court granted a request by the applicant for a duplicate copy of the writ of execution to be issued on the grounds that the original had been lost by the State authorities. In the ruling the court noted that the judgment of 3 March 1995 had not been enforced. On 15 March 2007 the ruling was upheld on appeal. 30.  On 23 April 2007 the applicant received the duplicate copy of the writ. On 25 April 2007 the Bailiff Service instituted enforcement proceedings and set a five-day time-limit for enforcing the judgment of 3 March 1995. 31.  On 18 June 2007 the applicant submitted an extract from the housing register issued on 5 June 2007 to the town council stating that Flat 1 was occupied by five members of her family and had 30.9 square metres of living space. 32.  On 25 June 2007 the town council informed the Bailiff Service that there were no vacant four-room flats available at that time. 33.  On 15 January 2008 the district council, acting on behalf of the town council, offered the applicant a four‑room flat at 9, 13 Tsiolkovskogo Street (hereinafter “Flat 2”) measuring 75.8 square metres with 55 square metres of living space, for a family of five (the applicant, her husband, her son and her two grandsons). On 1 February 2008 she agreed to move into Flat 2, and on 4 February 2008 the district council took the decision to allocate it to her. 34.  Having been satisfied that Flat 2 had been provided to the applicant, the Bailiff Service decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings on 8 February 2008. 35.  On 5 March 2008 the applicant concluded a social tenancy agreement in respect of Flat 2. 36.  On 21 March 2008 the municipality issued an order (no. 249) to strike the applicant off the housing list since she was no longer eligible for accommodation under a social tenancy agreement. The order stated, among other things, that the District Court judgment of 3 March 1995 had been enforced in full, and specified that the applicant had been provided with Flats 1 and 2. 37.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant challenged the Bailiff Service’s decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings, addressing her complaint to various levels of seniority. She argued that the property she had been allocated was three square metres smaller than the size she was entitled to. The Bailiff Service confirmed the lawfulness of their decision. 38.  In August 2008 the applicant challenged the Bailiff Service’s decisions in court. By a decision of 12 November 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh found that the requirement contained in the writ of execution had been fully complied with and rejected the complaint. By a final decision of 21 April 2009 the Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. 39.  On an unspecified date the applicant refused to participate in the privatisation of Flat 2 in favour of her second grandson, Mr D.A. Stetsenko. On 30 December 2008 title to the flat was transferred, by way of privatisation, to him. He subsequently signed an agreement gifting Flat 2 to his father, the applicant’s son, Mr A.M. Stetsenko, who remains its current owner. 40.  On an unspecified date the applicant discovered various defects in Flat 2, including a lack of ventilation in the bathroom. On 29 September 2009 she asked the Bailiff Service to quash their decision of 8 February 2008 to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. On 22 October 2009 they agreed to do so. The town council challenged the decision in court. 22 January 2010 the Tsentralniy District Court of Voronezh dismissed the complaint. It stated:
“... upon discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings [the applicant], in accordance with the established procedure, has not been deprived of the right to apply for another dwelling instead of the one provided, upon [her] return of the latter ...” 41.  On 2 March 2010 and 19 April 2010 the Bailiff Service found that the town council had failed to enforce the judgment of 3 March 1995, and scheduled new deadlines for enforcement of 23 March and 29 April 2010 respectively. 42.  On an unspecified date the Bailiff Service asked the District Court to explain whether proper enforcement of the judgment of 3 March 1995 required the allocation of a new flat to the applicant upon her return of Flat 2. On 16 June 2010 the court held that the issue raised had not been resolved in the relevant court proceedings and refused to reply to their request. 43.  On 10 June, 29 June, 7 July and 22 July 2010 the Bailiff Service acknowledged that complaints by the applicant concerning their failure to take the necessary steps to enforce the judgment were well-founded and confirmed the unlawfulness of their failure to act. 44.  On 29 July 2010 the Bailiff Service found that the town council had no valid excuse for the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment and ordered it to pay a fine for failure to enforce it within the five-day time-limit set on 25 April 2007. 45.  On 30 July 2010 the Bailiff Service set a new deadline for enforcement of 16 August 2010. 46.  On 2 August 2010 the authorities allegedly offered the applicant another flat in exchange for Flat 2. The applicant expressed her willingness to be allocated the new flat, but stated that she could not return Flat 2 since it was no longer hers. 47.  On 16 August 2010 the Bailiff Service found that the town council had no valid excuse for the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment and ordered it to pay a further fine for failure to enforce it within the set time‑limit. 48.  On 18 August 2010 the Bailiff Service set a new deadline for enforcement of 31 August 2010. 49.  On 14 September 2010 the Bailiff Service issued a decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings, in which they acknowledged that by refusing to participate in the privatisation of Flat 2 in favour of her grandson, the applicant had exercised her right to obtain housing in accordance with the writ of execution of 3 May 1995, therefore obtaining another flat would not be possible. 50.  By its decision of 28 October 2010 the Tsentralniy District Court rejected a complaint by the applicant about that decision, referring to the fact that the flat in question had been privatised and its title transferred to the applicant’s son and that, moreover, when the judgment was executed the health and safety technical regulations had not come into force. On 16 December 2010 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the lower court’s decision.