4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ryazan. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6.  In 1986 the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant's entitlement to certain social benefits is linked to the category of disability assigned to him due to deterioration of his health as a result of these events. 7.  In 1999 the applicant, who has been residing in a hostel room of 11 square metres with his wife and two daughters, asked the relevant local authority to provide him with free housing. The authorities found that his housing conditions were substandard and he was placed on a waiting list for concluding a social tenancy agreement. 8.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Ryazan Town Administration to challenge its failure to make free housing available to him within three months after placing him on the waiting list. 9.  On 5 July 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan ruled in the applicant's favour and ordered the Ryazan Town Administration to provide the applicant with an appropriate housing for a family of four, in accordance with the housing and sanitary standards. 10.  On appeal, the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the judgment on 13 September 2000. 11.  On 5 February 2001 enforcement proceedings were opened. However, on 9 February 2001 they were stayed pending the examination of the authorities' request for supervisory review. 12.  On 21 February 2001 the Prosecutor of the Ryazan Region lodged with the Ryazan Regional Court a request for supervisory review of the judgment in the applicant's favour. 13.  On 10 April 2001 the Ryazan Regional Court declined the Prosecutor's request and refused to initiate the supervisory review procedure. 14.  On 22 June 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the bailiffs' service challenging their failure to enforce the judgment of 5 July 2000. 15.  On 16 July 2001 the Prosecutor of the Ryazan Region lodged another request for supervisory review of the judgment of 5 July 2000 with the Supreme Court of Russia. 16.  On an unspecified date the Prosecutor's request was granted and a hearing before the Supreme Court of Russia scheduled. The applicant and his lawyer were not informed of the institution of the supervisory review proceedings and were not summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court. 17.  On 10 August 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia held a supervisory review hearing in the presence of a representative of the defendant, the Ryazan Town Administration, and a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office, who argued that the applicant should be provided with a flat in accordance with the order of precedence on the waiting list for improvement of housing conditions. Having heard the defendant's representative and the prosecutor and having examined the facts of the case, the Supreme Court modified the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan of 5 July 2000 and held that the applicant was to be provided with a flat in accordance with the order of precedence on the waiting list. 18.  On 3 April 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan discontinued the proceedings against the bailiffs' service for the reason that the applicant had withdrawn his complaint of 22 June 2001. 19.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant filed with the same court another complaint against the bailiffs' service. 20.  On 25 April 2002 the bailiffs' service recommenced the enforcement proceedings, based on the new judgment delivered on 10 August 2001 by the Supreme Court of Russia that required that the flat be provided in accordance with the order of precedence on the waiting list. 21.  On 26 April 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant's complaint against the bailiff's service because he withdrew the complaint for the second time. 22.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant requested the Presidium of the Supreme Court to initiate supervisory review of the Supreme Court's decision of 10 August 2001 and to quash it. 23.  On 15 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia granted the applicant's request and initiated supervisory review proceedings. 24.  On 12 November 2003 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of 10 August 2001 and affirmed the validity of the Sovetskiy District Court's judgment of 5 July 2000. The Presidium noted that, in accordance with law and that judgment, the applicant was to be provided with housing immediately. It underlined that applicant, a disabled person, resided with his family in a hostel. 25.  On 21 January 2004 the enforcement proceedings based on the writ of execution of 25 January 2001 issued in accordance with the judgment of 5 July 2000 were recommenced. 26.  On 3 March 2004 the bailiff requested the local authorities to provide the applicant with housing in accordance with the judgment of 5 July 2000. 27.  On 18 March 2004 the local authorities informed the bailiff that they had decided to allocate a certain flat for the applicant in a new block of flats and that the applicant would be allowed to move in once it is put into operation. 28.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant moved in that flat with his family. 29.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ryazan Town Administration, the bailiff's service, the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Finance claiming damages for the lengthy non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour. 30.  On 8 August 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan returned the particulars of claim of 12 July 2002 to the applicant and ordered him to correct certain inconsistencies by 15 August 2002. 31.  It appears that the applicant did not comply with the court's order.