5.  The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in the town of Vyshgorod, Kyiv Region, Ukraine. 6.  In 1994 the applicant, resident of Donetsk at that time, moved to Kyiv. She issued a letter of authority to Mr R. who promised to help the applicant to exchange her apartment in Donetsk for one in Kyiv. 7.  Mr R. sold her apartment to Mrs P. and the latter had subsequently sold it to Mrs L. The applicant allegedly received no money for it. 8.  In February 1995 Mrs L. instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk (the “Voroshylovskyy Court”), claiming that the applicant had lost her right to reside in the apartment. 9.  On 22 February 1995 the Voroshylovskyy Court found for Mrs L. 10.  On 30 October 1995 the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court, upon the protest lodged by the President of the same court, quashed the judgment of 22 February 1995 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 11.  On 23 June 2000 the Voroshylovskyy Court referred the claims of Mrs L. to the Kalininskyy District Court of Donetsk (the “Kalininskyy Court”) for examination. 12.  Meanwhile, in February 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy Court against Mr R., Mrs P., Mrs L., Mr K. and Mr B., the latter two having acted as the real estate agents of Mrs P., asking the court to annul the sales contracts in respect of the apartment and seeking the eviction of Mrs L. from it. She further claimed her belongings which she had allegedly left in the apartment. 13.  The Voroshylovskyy Court considered the case on three occasions and delivered judgments on 26 July 1995, 5 November 1996 and 10 November 1999, which were overturned by the decisions of the Donetsk Regional Court on 17 August 1995, 17 April 1997 and 30 March 2000, respectively. 14.  On 26 June 2000 the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the Kalininskyy Court. 15.  In July 2000 the Kalininskyy Court decided to examine the applicant’s claims and the claims of Mrs L. jointly. 16.  On 29 October 2001 the court found against the applicant. 17.  In the period from 10 December 2001 to 18 October 2002 the applicant lodged several requests for leave to appeal against the above judgment with the Kalinskyy Court and the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. The requests were rejected since the applicant failed to comply with procedural formalities and to respect the time-limits. No hearing was held during this period. 18.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant requested the court to renew the time‑limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 29 October 2001. 19.  On 18 October 2002 the Kalininsky Court rejected the applicant’s request to renew a time-limit for appeal against the above judgment. 20.  The applicant appealed against the ruling of 18 October 2002. On 15 May 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this ruling. 21.  On 17 June 2003 the Kalininskyy Court granted the applicant’s request to renew a time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 29 October 2001. 22.  On 5 August 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 October 2001. 23.  On 19 November 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. This ruling of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicant on 1 December 2003. 24.  In the course of the proceedings there were five hearings postponed due to the applicant’s failure to appear, twenty two hearings postponed due to the defendants’ failure to appear and one - due to the parties’ failure to appear.