4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Arkhangelsk. 5.  The applicant lived in a council house under the threat of collapse. As the local authority had failed to resettle the applicant, he brought a civil action. 6.  On 18 December 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk held for the applicant and ordered the authority to:
“provide [the applicant’s] family of four with a well-equipped at of at least 48 m² meeting sanitary and technical standards.”
This judgment became binding on 21 January 2002. 7.  On the applicant’s request, on 21 June 2002 the district court changed the mode of execution, and ordered the authority to pay to the applicant the price of a new flat. This decision was quashed on appeal, and after a rehearing, the award was increased. On 17 April 2003 the funds were credited to the bailiff’s account. 8.  On 28 April 2003 the authority provided the applicant with a flat of 43.1 m², and the applicant agreed to move in. The authority asked the court to order it to pay to the applicant the price of the 4.9 m² shortfall in order to settle the judgment debt, but the applicant objected, and the court dismissed this request. 9.  On the bailiff’s request, on 28 April 2005 the district court reverted the mode of execution from monetary to in-kind, and since the applicant had already received the flat, the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings. On 6 February 2006 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court ordered the enforcement proceedings to resume because the flat received by the applicant was smaller than originally awarded.