5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Yaroslavl. 6.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. On an unspecified date in 2002 he applied to the commander of military unit no. 19689 and requested documents confirming his priority rights to housing at the place of his choice in connection with his retirement. The applicant also asked for relevant documents which would enable him to get a State housing certificate. This document would allow him to claim a pecuniary compensation from the State partly covering the cost of acquiring the housing of the applicant’s choice. 7.  Having faced the refusal, the applicant then applied to the courts in this connection. By final judgment of the Moscow Regional Military Court of 20 January 2004 the applicant’s claim was granted. The court decided that:
“... the commander of military unit [no. 19689] must prepare the relevant documents and make an application to the competent official for the applicant to be put on the priority list of persons in need of housing ... and ... prepare the relevant documents so that [the applicant] could subsequently receive the State housing certificate for acquisition of housing at the place of his choice ...” 8.  On 10 March 2004 the Yaroslav Garrison Military Court issued the applicant with an enforcement writ and by decision of 6 April 2004 the competent bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings and demanded military unit no. 19689 to comply with it. 9.  By decision of 4 June 2004 the bailiffs considered the court judgment in question had been enforced and discontinued the proceedings accordingly. 10.  On 25 August 2004 the Souzdal District Court of the Vladimir Region quashed the bailiffs’ decision of 4 June 2004 as premature. 11.  On 9 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were again resumed. 12.  On 25 August 2005 the applicant’s family was entered into the list of priority housing of military unit no. 19689. 13.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant and his family of five was entered as the first candidate into the waiting list of the recipients of the State housing certificate of military unit no. 19689 for the year 2006 with the city of Moscow as the chosen place of future residence. 14.  On 15 November 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated, since the judgment in question has been complied with in full. 15.  On 27 November 2006 the applicant was issued with the State housing certificate. He refused to receive it, claiming that the certificate did not cover the entire cost of the flat and that the Ministry of Defence should now resolve his housing problem at its own expense in full. 16.  By letters of 11 May, 5 June, 19 July 2007 the applicant submitted that on 17 April 2007 he had been invited to the Military Prosecutor’s Office for “explanations”. 17.  The respondent Government submitted that this had been unrelated to the proceedings before this Court, since the competent military authorities had been under the impression that the applicant, an active serviceman, evaded his work-related duties. 18.  In relation to those allegations, on 30 March 2007 an investigator of the Tver Military Prosecutor’s office issued a decision not to institute criminal proceedings. 19.  This decision was quashed on 28 May 2007 and, following an additional investigation, the investigator again decided not to institute criminal proceedings in this connection for the lack of evidence of any crime. 20.  The applicant was also unsuccessful in three sets of court proceedings against various military authorities and the Ministry of Defence, which ended with final judgments dated 4 February, 4 March 2003 and 18 January 2005 respectively.