5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicant works in a municipal school in Orel; his wife is a librarian. They own a two-room apartment measuring 27.9 square metres, which they share with their two children, a daughter and a son. Their daughter is handicapped – she suffers from severe diabetes. 7.  In 1988 the applicant’s family was put on the “general” waiting list for residents of Orel who have sub-standard housing and who are therefore entitled to more spacious social housing (otherwise called “the list for those in need of better housing”). From 1997 onwards the applicant filed numerous requests with the local authorities of Orel seeking better housing for his family, which, in his view, they were entitled to on the ground of his daughter’s illness. In 1999 the applicant’s family was put on the local authorities’ “first priority” list of persons needing improved living conditions, on account of his daughter’s illness. 8.  In July 2004 the applicant was received by the Governor of the Orel Region and then met with the head of the Housing Authority of the Orel municipality. According to the applicant, the head of the Housing Authority promised him a new three-room flat in the town centre. However, a month later the Housing Authority offered the applicant’s family an old three-room flat in a suburb. The applicant was not satisfied with that offer, referring to the poor transport connections and the remoteness of the place. 9.  On 5 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sovetskiy District Court of Orel (“the District Court”) about inaction on the part of the local authorities and their failure to provide him with better social housing. He asked the court to order the local authorities to grant him a three-room apartment in exchange for his two-room apartment, and to pay him compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to him by their inaction. The relevant part of the applicant’s statement of claim read as follows:
“Under Decree No. 330 of the USSR Ministry of Health ... of 1983, diabetes was included in the list of illnesses which conferred a “first priority” (pervoocherednoy) right to the provision of additional room [to the families concerned]. In addition, under Decree No. 901 of the Russian Government of 27 July 1996, “... families with disabled children [who have been previously put on the “general” waiting list for families in need of better housing] shall be put on a separate list for the provision of “first priority” housing.
Additional room ... is to be provided to the disabled persons in accordance with the list of illnesses established by the Government.
In allocating the housing to families with disabled children ... [the competent authority] has to take into account the needs of an individual treatment program for the disabled person, his medical condition, and the distance to the [relevant] medical centre, the homes of his relatives, etc.” 10.  The applicant further indicated that he had been waiting for new housing for nine years. The authorities had repeatedly promised to provide him with a three-room apartment but had not done so. He added that the conditions his family had to live in (four persons living in a two-room apartment) were having a negative effect on the health of his handicapped daughter. The applicant described his correspondence and personal meetings with the representatives of the administration of the Orel Region and the town administration concerning the improvement of his living conditions. He acknowledged that in August 2004 his family had been offered a three-room flat, but he had had to decline that offer because the flat had been old and had been located too far from the polyclinic, a pharmacy, relatives, and so on. The statement of claim contained lengthy citations from the 1959 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, from the Russian Constitution of 1993, and from the European Convention on Human Rights. In the closing part of his statement of claim the applicant asked the court to order the town administration “to allocate [them] a three-room flat with the right of privatisation, free of charge, pursuant to Governmental Decree No. 901 ..., in exchange for their two-room flat ...”. He also sought payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the prolonged inaction of the authorities. 11.  On 8 December 2005 the District Court invited the applicant to re-formulate his claim by a fixed a time-limit. On an unspecified date the applicant re-formulated his claim against the local authorities and asked the court to acknowledge his right to additional housing, and to impose an obligation on the local authorities to provide him with a three-room apartment in a particular area of town. 12. On 9 February 2006 the District Court held a preliminary hearing. Its decision of the same date states that, at that hearing:
“... the plaintiff and his representative confirmed that they had been seeking to obtain housing in essence ‘out of turn’, and that the law did not set time-limits for the allocation of housing to families with disabled children; that their claim was based on the prolonged (more than 9 years) failure of the Town Administration to provide them with housing, on the worsening of the health of their child, and on the repeated promises of the Town Administration to provide them with a three-room flat.” 13.  Having heard the applicant, the District Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to examine his case and discontinued the proceedings. It held, in particular, as follows:
“Under Article 134 point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judge must refuse to examine a claim if it does not fall to be examined pursuant to the rules of civil procedure because it is to be examined and determined within a different judicial procedure.
The court [refused to examine the applicant’s claim] for the following reasons.
Pursuant to Ruling No. 2 of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the USSR of 3 April 1987, as amended ..., the courts had jurisdiction to examine ... housing disputes between landlords and tenants in State-owned houses ..., and other housing disputes relating to ... eviction ..., the provision of housing on grounds provided by the civil law (as a result of the demolition or substantial renovation of a house, transfer of housing to the category of non-residential premises, etc.), [disputes related to] orders concerning allocation of housing by joint decision of the administration ... of a public association and a trade union committee, with subsequent notification of the executive committee [of the local administration] (under Article 24 of the USSR Basic Legislation on Housing ...), and in the case of a refusal of the executive committee to deliver an order of allocation of housing.
The courts are also competent to examine cases concerning the provision of housing at the request of persons who under the housing legislation ... have the right to obtain housing “extraordinarily”, including those who have the right to obtain housing within a particular time-limit, if that time-limit has not been respected. The courts cannot examine claims which fall within the competence of other bodies, [namely disputes] concerning provision of housing for those in need of better living conditions, or concerning provision of smaller housing ... .
It has been established that the plaintiff had been put on the “general” waiting list [created by the municipal authorities] for those in need of better housing ... and on the “first priority” list on the ground that he had a disabled child. Simultaneously, the plaintiff had been put on a waiting list [created] by his employer - the Department of Culture, and he was the first on the list.
Governmental Decree No. 901 of 1996 ... provides that families with disabled children ... which are ... in need of better housing are to be put on separate waiting lists for “first-priority” allocation of housing ... .
The law “On the social protection of disabled persons in the Russian Federation” does not fix time-limits for granting housing to ... families with disabled children.
It follows that [the applicant’s] claim is not within the competence of this court.” 14.  The applicant appealed against the decision. 15.  On 15 March 2006 the Orel Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 February 2006. The court found that, according to the relevant Articles of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Housing Code, the courts did not have jurisdiction to examine disputes concerning the granting of social housing and that other State bodies had competence in respect of that issue. It emphasised that the courts could examine cases brought by persons entitled to the “extraordinary” provision of social housing, including those who had not received housing within the time-limit established by law. However, (a) the applicant was only entitled to receive housing in accordance with the “first priority list”, and (b) the Law “On the Social Protection of Handicapped Persons in the Russian Federation” did not establish any time-limit for providing families with handicapped children with housing. 16. The applicant’s supervisory review complaints proved unsuccessful. In those complaints the applicant confirmed that he had been put on the “general” and “first priority” waiting lists. 17.  On 12 January 2007 the local authorities suggested to the applicant that he submit an application for receiving social housing aid in the form of a financial grant. It appears that the applicant did not do so. 18.  The applicant has not received new housing to date.