4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow. 5.  On 22 November 1994 the applicant and her husband bought a flat. In addition, they agreed to lend a certain sum to the seller.  After the applicant had paid for the flat, the seller refused to transfer the title and move out. The applicant and her husband sued her for eviction. The seller counterclaimed and requested a court to annul the contract and to order restitutio in integrum. 6.  On 4 June 1997 the Moscow City Court, in the final instance, found for the seller. 7.  In June 1999 the applicant sued the seller for return of the purchase price, repayment of the loan and interest on the amounts outstanding. 8.  On 5 March 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court partly accepted the action. 9.  The applicant's representative, Mr Martyanov, appealed to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and that the District Court had not given the applicant's arguments due consideration. 10.  The Moscow City Court listed an appeal hearing for 2 August 2001 and sent summonses to the applicant and her representative by post. The representative received the summons on 23 July 2001. The summons was not delivered to the applicant. 11.  The appeal hearing of 2 August 2001 was adjourned until 20 August 2001 because the parties defaulted. According to the Government, summonses for the hearing listed for 20 August 2001 were mailed to the parties on 13 August 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons were dispatched on 17 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 11 September 2001. 12.  On 20 August 2001 the Moscow City Court adjourned the hearing until 4 September 2001 because the parties did not attend. According to the Government, the Moscow City Court sent summonses to the parties by post on 21 August 2001. 13.  On 4 September 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present. 14.  On 4 October 2001 the applicant received a summons for the hearing that had taken place on 4 September 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons was dispatched on 24 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 4 October 2001. 15.  It appears that the judgment of 5 March 2001, as upheld on appeal on 4 September 2001, has remained unenforced because the seller left Moscow and her current place of residence is unknown.