5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Sochi. 6.  In 1989 the applicant’s employer granted him the right to use room no. 28 in a hostel. However, he could not move in because another person, Mrs H., was living there. The applicant applied to a court for an eviction order. 7.  On 25 June 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi found for the applicant and held that he should move into room no. 28, whereas Mrs H. and her family should move to a new flat which would be provided by the Sochi Town Council and the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” (the entity in charge of operation and maintenance of Sochi dormitories). On 13 August 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 8.  On 5 September 2002 a writ of execution was submitted to the Sochi Bailiffs’ Service. According to the Government, on an unspecified date the bailiffs fined the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” for the failure to execute the judgment. 9.  The director of the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” informed the bailiffs that, pursuant to the Sochi Mayor’s letter of 6 June 2002, the task of managing flats in municipal hostels had been assigned to the municipal enterprise “Kvartirno-pravovaya sluzhba goroda” (city service for housing and legal matters). 10.  Given that it was not clear which entity was responsible for execution of the judgment, the bailiffs asked the District Court for a clarification. Further to their request, on 13 February 2003 the District Court clarified the judgment of 25 June 2002, indicating the following order of enforcement. First, the Sochi Town Council would provide a flat to Mrs H., then Mrs H. would be evicted from room no. 28 in the hostel, and, finally, the applicant would move into that room. 11.  The applicant complained to a court that the bailiffs had made no steps to enforce the judgment. On 27 May 2003 the District Court held that the bailiffs should take all necessary legal measures to enforce the judgment. 12.  The applicant then asked the court to amend the method of enforcement and recover a sum of money from the Sochi Town Council equivalent to the market price of one room. On 3 February 2004 the District Court granted his application, finding that during more than one and a half years the Town Council had taken no measures to provide Mrs H. with a flat. The District Court held that the Town Council should pay the applicant RUB 256,727. A representative of the Town Council did not attend the hearing or lodge an appeal against the decision. 13.  On 16 March 2004 a bailiff issued a decision for the above amount to be paid from the bank account of the Town Council. On the same day the Town Council asked the court to reverse its decision of 3 February 2004 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It claimed that it had not been previously aware of the fact that on 21 January 2004 the applicant had refused, in writing, to move into room no. 28. On 30 March 2004 the District Court granted the Town Council’s application and remitted the matter for a new examination. 14.  By letter of 15 February 2005, the Sochi Mayor ordered the head of the municipal enterprise “Kvartirno-pravovaya sluzhba goroda” to take measures for immediate enforcement of the judgment of 25 June 2002. 15.  On 12 December 2005 the District Court amended the operative part of the judgment of 25 June 2002. It held that Mrs H. and her family should be evicted from room no. 28 and resettled into room no. 98 in the same building and that the applicant would move into room no. 28. 16.  On 14 February 2006 Mrs H. and her family voluntarily moved out of room no. 28 and the applicant moved in. The bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings.