4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the town of Dneprodzerzhinsk, Ukraine. 5.  As of August 1996, the applicant, then a minor, was registered as a resident in a State-owned apartment (“the first apartment”) along with S.B., her mother, A.Z., her maternal grandmother, and R.Z., her maternal uncle. According to the law in place at the material time, all residents had the right to privatise the apartment with equal shares. 6.  However, at the material time the applicant's uncle was serving a sentence in a penitentiary, the applicant's mother was missing, and the applicant lived with G.G., subsequently appointed her legal guardian, at a different address. On 9 August 1996, A.Z. privatised the apartment and became its sole owner. The officers of the housing authority, who had issued her with the necessary documents, were subsequently indicted for fraud and negligence and later amnestied. 7.  On 16 August 1996 A.Z. sold the apartment to Y.K. On 15 November 1996 Y.K. exchanged it for an apartment owned by T.M. (“the second apartment”). On 27 January 1997 he sold the second apartment to O.V., who then gave it as a gift to N.K. In 1998 T.M. died and her two minor sons, who remained the owners of the first apartment, were taken into public care and accommodated in boarding schools. 8.  The first apartment has remained empty since its first sale. 9.  On 15 December 1998 the Zavodsky District Prosecutor of Dniprodzerzhinsk, having determined that the applicant had insufficient means to pay for representation of her lawful interests before the court, instituted civil proceedings on her behalf in the Zavodsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhinsk (“the Zavodsky Court”) seeking annulment of the privatisation and of the sale of the first apartment to Y.K. 10.  The applicant's legal guardian, G.G. was summoned and participated in the proceedings as the applicant's statutory representative. On an unspecified date the applicant was summoned to the proceedings as a third party. 11.  Between December 1998 and February 2000 there were no further procedural actions. 12.  On 7 February 2000 the Prosecutor amended his claims, requesting annulment of all the transactions with regard to the first and the second apartments, restitution of the applicant's right to reside in the first apartment, as well as the return of the title to the second apartment to T. M.'s children. 13.  The first hearing was scheduled for 12 October 2000. 14.  Between October 2000 and June 2002 the court scheduled some nineteen hearings, some thirteen of which were adjourned on account of the absences of one or more of the defendants or their representatives. On three other occasions the Prosecutor failed to appear, and on one occasion the hearing was adjourned on account of the judge's sickness. 15.  On 14 June 2002 the Zavodsky Court dismissed the Prosecutor's claims, having found that Y.K. had purchased the first apartment in good faith, while the requests for annulment of the subsequent transactions were unsubstantiated in this context. The Prosecutor appealed. 16.  On 22 July 2002 the Zavodsky Court found that the Prosecutor had failed to provide full details of the parties in his appeal and gave him a fixed time-limit to rectify these shortcomings. 17.  On 16 October 2002 the Zavodsky Court returned the Prosecutor's appeal as “not lodged” as he had not rectified the shortcomings as instructed. 18.  On 6 March 2003 the Prosecutor appealed against the decision of 16 October 2002, requesting leave to appeal out-of-time, in view of the fact that the Zavodsky Court had not notified him of either the decision of 22 July or that of 16 October 2002. 19.  On 11 March 2003 the Zavodsky Court gave the Prosecutor leave to appeal out-of-time. 20.  On 21 May 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court”) returned the submissions to the first-instance court as the latter had failed to supplement them with a copy of the Prosecutor's original appeal against the judgment of 14 June 2002. 21.  On 21 August 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 October 2002 to return the Prosecutor's appeal against the judgment as “not lodged”. 22.  On 23 October 2003 the Prosecutor was granted leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of 14 June 2002. 23.  On 17 December 2003 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 June 2002 and remitted the case for fresh consideration, having found that the first-instance court had not given due regard to the fact that A.Z., having fraudulently privatised the apartment, had been unable to convey good title to third parties. 24.  Between February 2004 and December 2006 the court scheduled fifteen hearings, some seven of which were adjourned on account of the absences of one or more of the defendants. On three other occasions the Prosecutor failed to appear. On one occasion the judge failed to appear as he was on holiday, on three occasions because he was ill, and on five occasions because he was involved in other proceedings. 25.  On 20 December 2006 the Zavodsky Court terminated the proceedings as the applicant had reached the age of majority. 26.  On an unspecified date in March 2007 the Dniprodzerzhinsk Prosecutor, acting in the applicant's interests, instituted new civil proceedings in the Zavodskoy Court. He challenged the privatisation of the apartment by A.Z and requested the court to declare null and void the sale and exchange of the first apartment. The Prosecutor also claimed the applicant's property right over the apartment. On 4 April 2008 the court allowed the claims.