4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Krasnoperekopsk, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. 5.  On 27 February 1997 the Krasnoperekopsk Court (Красноперекопський міський суд) ordered the State-owned Construction Company “Budivelne Upravlinnya-50” (the “Company,” Будівельне управління №50 Тресту „Перекопхімбуд” ТБО „Кримбуд” Корпорації „Укрбуд”) to pay the applicant UAH 157,197[1] in damages for a breach of their contract for construction of a house. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement. 6.  On 22 April 1997 the Bailiffs' Service attached the Company's assets to secure the execution of the judgment. 7.  On 22 July 1997 and 13 July 1998 the applicant received the total of UAH 14,848.[2] 8.  On 6 August 1997 the State Property Fund of the Crimea (the “Fund,” Фонд державного майна Автономної республіки Крим) leased the Company's production unit to a third party. 9.  On 28 May 1998 the Ministry of Building and Investments of the Crimea (Міністерство будівництва і інвестицій Автономної республіки Крим) ordered liquidation of the Company and established a liquidation commission for this purpose. 10.  On 22 October 1998 the liquidation commission adopted the Company's liquidation balance, which certified that the Company lacked assets to pay its outstanding debt to the applicant. 11.  In January 2001 the applicant challenged the Fund's decision to lease the Company's production unit, alleging that it had infringed his rights as a creditor and the attachment order of 22 April 1997. 12.  On 2 April 2001 the Kyivsky District Court of Simferopol (the “Kyivsky Court;” Київський районний суд м. Сімферополя) found for the applicant and declared the Fund's decision null and void. On 22 June 2001 the court issued an additional judgment, ordering the Fund to sell a part of the Company's property of a value sufficient to repay the applicant UAH 267,389.56[3] of the judgment debt adjusted to inflation. The Fund appealed, and on 24 October 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea (Апеляційний суд Автономної Республіки Крим) upheld these judgments. 13.  On 16 May 2002 the Supreme Court overruled the judgments of 2 April, 22 June and 24 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 14.  On 21 January 2003 the Kyivsky Court left the applicant's claims without consideration due to his repetitive failures to appear for the hearings. According to the applicant, he had not been duly summoned for the hearings in question. He did not appeal against the court decision of 21 January 2003. 15.  The Krasnoperekopsk Court's judgment of 27 February 1997 remains largely unenforced to the present day.