4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Gorlovka, Ukraine. 5.  From 30 January 1991 to 12 June 1998 the applicant was married to S.D. During this period they lived in an apartment situated in a private house owned by S.D. (hereafter “the apartment”). 6.  On 23 May 1998 S.D. made a written undertaking to pay a debt to K.A., a third person, by 30 May 1998. On the latter date S.D. made another written undertaking to pay a debt to S.N., a third person, by 30 June 1998. 7.  On 18 June 1998 S.D. made a gift of his apartment to the applicant which was certified by a notary officer. 8.  Subsequently K.A. and S.N. sued S.D. By two separate judgments of 7 October 1998 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Gorlovka (“the District Court”) ordered S.D. to pay the claimed debts. In consequence, enforcement proceedings were instituted. 9.  On 4 January 1999 S.D. instituted proceedings in the District Court against the applicant, asking the court to declare the gift of the apartment of 18 June 1998 void. 10.  On 7 February 2000 the District Court ordered the attachment of the apartment upon S.D.'s request. 11.  On 1 March 2000 the District Court declared the gift of 18 June 1998 null and void. On 29 May 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court (after June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal - hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment. 12.  On 2 April 2001 the District Court lifted, upon S.D.'s request, the attachment order of 7 February 2000 as the judgment of 1 March 2000 had already become final. The applicant appealed. 13.  On 9 July 2001 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 2 April 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 14.  On 5 November 2001 the District Court lifted the attachment order of 7 February 2000. 15.  On 24 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, acting under the new cassation procedure, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decisions of 1 March and 29 May 2000. 16.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court against S.D., K.A. and S.N., claiming ownership of a part of the apartment. 17.  Meanwhile, in the course of the proceedings on enforcement of the judgments of 7 October 1998, two public auctions managed by the Ukrspetsjust State Company and aiming to sell the disputed apartment were held but nobody expressed the wish to buy it. On 28 May 2001, following these unsuccessful auctions, the State Bailiffs' Service decided to transfer the property right over this apartment to K.A. and S.N. in payment of the debts awarded to them. On 12 June 2001 this transfer was certified by the relevant notary office. 18.  On 30 July 2001 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending outcome of the proceedings against the Bailiffs' Service (see paragraph 28 below). The next hearing was held on 14 October 2002. 19.  On 24 February 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 14 October 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. 20.  On 16 September 2004 the local prosecutor entered the proceedings on behalf of the applicant. 21.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant lodged an additional claim challenging the decision of 28 May 2001 and the transaction of 12 June 2001. 22.  In April 2005 the applicant amended her claims, challenging the property right of K.A. and S.N. over the disputed apartment. 23.  On 12 May 2005 the District Court ordered the attachment of the half of the house in which the disputed apartment was situated. 24.  On 17 August 2005 the District Court rejected the applicant's claims. On 17 March 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. 25.  Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings before the District Court, the State Bailiffs' Service and the Ukrspetsjust State Company entered the proceedings as third parties. 26.  In April 2007 the applicant introduced an additional claim challenging the contract concluded between third persons on the sale of another part of the house in which the apartment was situated. 27.  The proceedings are still pending before the District Court. 28.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court against the State Bailiffs' Service. She challenged its actions aiming to sell the disputed apartment. She also asked the District Court to annul the decision of 28 May 2001 and the transaction of 12 June 2001. On 22 February 2002 the court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant was not a party to the impugned enforcement proceedings. On 16 May 2002 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. 29.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court against the local department of justice and the notary's office, which had certified the transfer of the property right from S.D. to K.A. and S.N., seeking to annul the decision of 28 May 2001 and the transaction of 12 June 2001, respectively. On 16 August 2002 the court issued a ruling about the shortcomings of the applicant's claim and gave her the possibility to correct these shortcomings. The applicant did not provide any further information. 30.  The applicant also tried to institute criminal proceedings against the State Bailiffs, K.A. and S.N., but to no avail.