5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Yerevan. She is a second‑degree disabled person. 6.  On an unspecified date during the Soviet period, the State allocated to the applicant a flat in Yerevan on the right of tenancy. 7.  In 1981 the applicant’s niece, who had moved to Yerevan to study, obtained registration at the applicant’s flat with the latter’s consent. In 1986 she moved back to the town of Hrazdan without cancelling her registration. In 1989 the applicant’s niece was married, and she gave birth to two children in 1989 and 1991 respectively. Upon the applicant’s consent, the children were also registered at the applicant’s flat so that they could receive medical care from her address. 8.  On 11 February 1993 the applicant acquired ownership of the flat, which was notarised on 19 February 1993. 9.  In 1996 the applicant’s niece passed away. Her registration at the applicant’s flat was subsequently cancelled. 10.  On 26 December 2003 the applicant applied to the Kanaker-Zeytun District Police Department of Yerevan (hereafter the District Police Department) seeking to cancel the children’s registration. 11.  By a letter of 20 January 2004 the District Police Department informed the applicant of its refusal to cancel the children’s registration on the ground that, according to the relevant rules, the registration of minors could be cancelled only together with the cancellation of the registration of one of their parents; upon an application by the parents or the children’s lawful representatives; in connection with studies; or upon a relevant court order. 12.  On an unspecified date, the applicant contested this refusal before the courts, seeking to oblige the District Police Department to deregister the children and claiming that the latter had never lived in her flat. 13.  On 15 March 2004 the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the refusal was lawful as the District Police Department had acted in accordance with Government Decree no. 821 of 25 December 1998. According to the text of the judgment, the parties had been duly notified of the hearing but had failed to appear. According to the applicant, she was not notified of that hearing. 14.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal. 15.  On 8 June 2004 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the same ground. According to the text of this judgment, the applicant and her representative made oral submissions at the court hearing. According to the applicant, neither she nor her representative was given the opportunity to make any oral submissions. It further appears that the children’s father was present at the appeal hearing and petitioned to dismiss the applicant’s claim. 16.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 17.  On 23 July 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal finding that:
“According to Article 225 of the Civil Code, if no agreement is reached regarding the termination of the right of use of accommodation, this right can be terminated upon the owner’s request through court proceedings by paying compensation equivalent to the market value.
In such circumstances, the arguments raised in the appeal on points of law are unsubstantiated, since the right of use of accommodation enjoyed by [the children] can be terminated only in accordance with Article 225 of the Civil Code...”