4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow. 5.  The applicant occupied a flat under a tenancy agreement. 6.  On 9 December 1992 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. 7.  The applicant served his sentence from 28 May 1992 to 25 May 2001. 8.  As soon as he was released from prison the applicant returned to his flat to discover that on 12 October 1992, during the pre-trial investigation of his criminal case and his detention, A., acting on the applicant’s behalf in accordance with an allegedly false power of attorney, privatised the above flat and on 18 November 1992 sold it to I. 9.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against A., I., the Moscow City Justice Department, the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow, and the State-owned maintenance company (Государственное унитарное предприятие Дирекция единого заказчика района “Печатники” г. Москвы – “the maintenance company”) seeking to challenge the power of attorney, the privatisation agreement and the sale contract, and to recover the flat. A. was subsequently excluded from the defendants as he had died on 12 August 1994. 10.  Eight hearings fixed between 21 February 2002 and 21 November 2002 were adjourned, mostly due to the necessity to obtain the applicant’s criminal file and to make inquiries with the maintenance company, the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow, the Savings Bank, the Bureau of Technical Inventory and the Moscow City Notary Chamber (Московская городская нотариальная палата). Some of the hearings were adjourned because the defendants failed to appear. 11.  On 17 December 2002 the proceedings were suspended in order to conduct a handwriting examination at the applicant’s request. The documents were submitted to the expert body on 13 March 2003. 12.  The examination started on 13 April 2003 after the applicant made an advance payment and was terminated by 16 May 2003. 13.  On 11 June 2003 the results of the expert examination were submitted to the District Court, and on 16 June the proceedings were resumed. 14.  On 24 June 2003 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims. The final text of the judgment was prepared and sent to the applicant in August 2003, following which the applicant lodged an appeal against it. 15.  On 2 October 2003 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 16.  Of seven hearings fixed between 3 February 2004 and 24 August 2004 one was adjourned because the parties failed to appear; two because the applicant could not attend; and three hearings were adjourned on the initiative of the District Court due to the necessity to obtain, once more, the applicant’s criminal file and to make inquiries with the maintenance company, the notary who certified the disputed documents, the Moscow City Notary Chamber and the Municipal Housing Department of the South‑East Administrative Circuit of Moscow; and one hearing was adjourned because the judge was involved in a different set of proceedings. 17.  On 17 September 2004 the Lyublinskiy District Court suspended the proceedings following the defendants’ request to conduct another handwriting examination. However, following an appeal by the applicant, on 26 November 2004 the Moscow City Court cancelled the suspension. 18.  The seven hearings fixed between 31 January 2005 and 4 July 2005 were all adjourned on the initiative of the District Court due to the necessity to obtain, for the third time, the applicant’s criminal file, to make further inquiries with the Federal Forensic Examinations Centre (Российский федеральный центр судебной экспертизы при Министерстве юстиции Российской Федерации), the maintenance company and the Moscow City Notary Chamber, and subsequently due to the failure of the above bodies to supply the court with the replies to the above requests. 19.  On 25 July 2005 the Lyublinskiy District Court again dismissed the applicant’s claims. The final text of the judgment was prepared in October 2005, following which the applicant lodged his appeal. 20.  Being initially fixed for 19 January 2006, the appeal hearing was adjourned until 4 April 2006, because the court had failed to inform the defendants in due time of the contents of the applicant’s appeal. On 4 April 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.