4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the town of Gola Prystan. 5.  The applicant's relatives owned a house in the same town which stood on a plot of land belonging to the municipality. The applicant's relatives had a right to use this plot of land. The entrance to the plot was situated on the Kirova Street and the house was registered at the address of 14 Kirova Street.  By the decision of the Gola Prystan Town Council (“the Council”) of 10 December 1975, a part of this plot was allocated to a third party for construction of a house, which was completed in 1976. As a result, the original entrance was destroyed and the applicant's relatives ceased to have a direct access to their house from any neighbouring street. 6.  In 1989 the applicant inherited his relatives' house. He also obtained the right to use the land on which it stood. 7.  On an unspecified date, he requested the Council to designate a new passage and entrance to that land. On 12 December 1989 the Council decided that the new passage and entrance should be from the Gorkogo Street through the yard of the neighbouring multi-storey apartment house. The address of the applicant's house (14 Kirova Street) remained unchanged. 8.  The applicant disagreed and lodged several complaints with the local authorities, alleging that he experienced difficulties in accessing his house. In particular, he argued that he could not bring large items to the land and that visitors encountered difficulties in locating his house at its actual address. By letter of 16 September 1994, the Council informed the applicant that he could freely pass through the neighbouring building's yard in order to enter his house and that he could request amendments to the address of the house, if he so wished. 9.  In March 1991 the applicant lodged with the Gola Prystan Town Court a claim against the Council. He alleged that the latter had unlawfully reduced the size of the land on which his house stood and that he had difficulties in accessing his house. The applicant sought recovery of the part of land which had been taken away from his relatives in 1975. 10.  On 18 April 1991 the court refused to consider the applicant's claim on the merits. It found that the applicant in fact contested the lawfulness of the Council's decision of 10 December 1975 and, thus, his claim was not to be considered by the courts since he had not exhausted non-judicial remedies available in 1975. Furthermore the applicant was not the owner of the land on which his house stood. 11.  On 29 May 1991 the Kherson Regional Court upheld in cassation the ruling of the first instance court. 12.  In 2001 the applicant lodged with the Gola Prystan Town Court a new claim against the Council. He again alleged that the latter had unlawfully taken away a part of the land on which his house stood in 1975 and that it had not paid compensation for the damage which the applicant's family had allegedly sustained as a result of this. The applicant also alleged that he experienced difficulties in accessing and using his house and that the Council unlawfully refused to resolve his problem. The applicant requested the court to order the Council to grant him an official right of passage over his neighbours' land and to set up a five-meter wide passage and entrance to his plot from the Kirova Street. The applicant also sought compensation. 13.  On 20 February 2001 the court refused to consider the applicant's claim on the merits. It put forward the same reasons as in its ruling of 18 April 1991. 14.  The applicant appealed in cassation, alleging that the first instance court had erred in establishing the subject-matter of his claim. On 11 April 2001 the Kherson Regional Court reiterated the findings of the first instance court and rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.