4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Moscow. 5.  In 1990 the applicant’s mother was allegedly tricked into selling her house. On 19 February 1996 the local administration seized the plot of land on which the house was situated from the applicant’s mother, and on 20 February 1996 allocated it to the buyer of the house, Mr L. Subsequently, Mr L. sold the house to Mr Ch., and the title to the plot of land was transferred to him. 6.  On 18 April 1996 the applicant, on behalf of her incapable mother, challenged the decision of 20 February 1996 before a court claiming that the title to the plot of land in question belonged to her mother. However, on 29 April 1996 the proceedings were suspended until the outcome of another set of proceedings to which the applicant was a party. 7.  On 5 July 1996 the proceedings were resumed. 8.  On 11 July 1996 the Novosilskiy District Court of the Orel Region dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 19 August 1996 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination. 9.  In the meantime the applicant’s mother died, and on 11 November 1996 the proceedings were suspended pending the determination of her legal successor. On 8 September 1997 the court designated the applicant as her mother’s legal successor and resumed the proceedings. 10.  On 19 November 1997 the Korsakovskiy District Court of the Orel Region dismissed the applicant’s claim. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 11.  At the request of the Prosecutor of the Orel Region submitted in the interests of the applicant, on 25 February 1999 the Presidium of the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment of 19 November 1997 by way of supervisory review, because of numerous violations of the procedural rules set out in the domestic legislation, and remitted the case for a new examination. 12.  As regards the four hearings scheduled between 6 April 1999 and 8 July 1999 two were adjourned due to the absence of the defendants, one was adjourned because the applicant did not attend and one was adjourned at the latter’s request. 13.  On 8 July 1999 the hearing was adjourned until 24 September 1999 due to the parties’ absence. 14.  On 24 September 1999 the Korsakovskiy District Court disallowed the action, because the applicant had repeatedly defaulted. However, on 8 December 1999 the Orel Regional Court quashed the above decision on appeal, having found that the applicant had not been duly summoned for the hearings of 8 July and 24 September 1999, and remitted the case for a new examination. 15.  On 29 March 2000 the Korsakovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 21 June 2000 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination. 16.  As regards the five hearings scheduled between 11 September 2000 and 17 April 2001 three were adjourned because the defendants did not attend, one was adjourned because one of the defendants had not been notified of the hearing and one was adjourned because the court considered it necessary to examine additional evidence. 17.  On 3 May 2001 the Korsakovskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and annulled the decision of 20 February 1996 concerning the allocation of the plot of land to Mr L., the registration of the latter’s title to the disputed plot of land, the sale contract between Mr L. and Mr Ch. and the registration of the latter’s title to the plot of land at issue. On 14 May 2001 the District Court delivered an additional judgment by which it annulled the decision of the local administration concerning the land seizure. No appeal was lodged against the judgments, and on 24 May 2001 they became final and binding. 18.  On 5 August 2002 the applicant’s title to the plot of land was registered in the real estate register. 19.  On 28 January 2003 the President of the Orel Regional Court introduced an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 3 May and 14 May 2001. 20.  On 13 February 2003 the Presidium of the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgments of 3 May and 14 May 2001 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a new examination. The reason for quashing was the alleged breach of the provisions of substantive law by the lower courts. 21.  As regards the subsequent five hearings scheduled between 6 May 2003 and 28 August 2003 one was adjourned because the applicant did not appear, one was adjourned in order to obtain the attendance of additional witnesses, one was adjourned due to the examination of the request to suspend the proceedings filed by the applicant, one was adjourned because the applicant had submitted additional claims and one was adjourned at the request of the defendants in order to complete the preparation of their counterclaims. 22.  On 9 September 2003 the defendants requested a transfer of the case to another court. By decision of 18 September 2003 the Korsakovskiy District Court granted their request and transferred the case to the Novosilskiy District Court. However, on 29 October 2003 the Orel Regional Court quashed this decision on appeal. 23.  As regards the three hearings fixed between 26 November 2003 and 25 December 2003 one was adjourned because the applicant did not attend and two were adjourned because the defendants did not attend. 24.  On 28 January 2004 the Korsakovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. However, on 12 May 2004 the Orel Regional Court quashed the decision on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination. 25.  On 31 May 2004 the Korsakovskiy District Court suspended the proceedings until the outcome of other proceedings to which the applicant was a party. Those proceedings concerned the issue as to whether or not the applicant’s mother had been the proper owner of the plot of land. By judgment of 17 November 2004, as upheld on appeal on 19 January 2005, the court held that the title of the applicant’s now deceased mother to the plot of land was to be annulled. Thereafter the proceedings of the present case were resumed on 27 January 2005. 26.  On 15 February 2005 the Korsakovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that since by the judgment of 17 November 2004, as upheld on appeal on 19 January 2005, the title of the applicant’s mother to the plot of land at issue was annulled, the applicant’s claims were unsubstantiated. On 27 April 2005 the Orel Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. Accordingly, the applicant’s title to the plot of land of 5 August 2002 was invalidated.