5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan. She is unemployed and receives state welfare benefit. 6.  On 10 October 1991 the Republic of Armenia Executive Committee of the Mashtots District Council of People’s Deputies decided to allocate a flat to the applicant in a building in Yerevan, which was to be constructed by Kanaz Aluminium Factory (hereafter - the Factory). 7.  It appears that the foundation of the future building was laid but, as the Soviet Union collapsed, the construction of the building was stopped. 8.  On an unspecified date the Factory went bankrupt and a liquidation commission (hereafter - the commission) was set up. 9.  It appears that on 8 May 2007 the applicant lodged a request with the commission seeking to be allocated a flat or to receive money equivalent to its value. 10.  On 10 May 2007 the head of the commission rejected the applicant’s request on the ground that the building, of which one flat was to be allocated to the applicant, had not been constructed due to the lack of financial means. He stated that the Factory had carried out construction activities with direct financial support from the Soviet Government and that after the Soviet Union collapsed it had to stop construction projects for lack of financial means. 11.  On 13 June 2007 the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, lodged a claim with the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan seeking to oblige the Factory to allocate a flat to her or provide her compensation equivalent to its value. 12.  On 19 July 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the same grounds as those relied on by the head of the commission. It also found that the Factory had been declared bankrupt and had no legal successor as such. 13.  On 23 July 2007 the applicant, still unrepresented, lodged an appeal against this judgment. 14.  On 15 October 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court. 15.  The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. She alleges that she was unable to do so as she could not afford to hire an advocate authorised to act before that court, whose services were costly. She further claims that she applied to many lawyers with a request to provide her with free legal services as regards her application to the Court of Cassation. However, her requests were turned down on the ground that the issue concerned an apartment and legal aid was not available for this type of a dispute.