5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Stryy.
6.  On 25 December 1997 the Stryy prosecutor lodged civil proceedings on behalf of the Stryy City Council seeking to have declared that the applicant had lost her right to occupy a flat provided to her under the protected social tenancy scheme, as she had abandoned it.
7.  On 2 February 1998 the Stryy Court allowed this claim.
8.  The applicant appealed in cassation. She argued, in particular, that she had not abandoned the flat. She had been absent from Stryy because she had been serving a prison sentence. By the time of the court hearing, she had moved back into the flat and had paid the charges owing. She also noted that she had two dependent children and no other residence.
9.  On 16 March 1998 the Lviv Regional Court rejected the cassation appeal by the applicant and the judgment of 2 February 1998 became final. The court noted, in particular, that, as followed from the documents on file, the applicant had been absent from Stryy from 13 March 1996 until 13 December 1997, in view of her arrest followed by a criminal conviction and a prison sentence in Russia. According to Article 71 of the applicable Housing Code, she had lost her occupancy right in respect of the flat previously occupied by her within the period of six months after her conviction had become final.
10.  On the same date the court also addressed the City Council in a separate ruling (окрема ухвала) inviting it to consider the applicant’s personal situation and the need for her reintegration into society in deciding on how to use the flat formerly occupied by her. It noted, in particular, that the applicant had no other housing, was unemployed and had two children. The applicant’s children were registered as residents in a two-room flat, which belonged to the applicant’s mother, who was ailing and apparently reluctant to share accommodation with the applicant.
11.  On 1 April 1998 the Stryy Mayor reacted at the Lviv Regional Court’s separate ruling informing it that the Stryy Prosecutor had instituted the proceedings against the applicant without consulting the City Council, which had no interest in evicting the applicant. He also assured the court that the City Council would take no action to have the applicant evicted.
12.  On 20 May 1998 the Stryy prosecutor instituted eviction proceedings against the applicant under Article 109 of the Housing Code, referring to the fact that she had no legal basis to continue residing in the flat but refused to move out voluntarily. In addition, he presented a letter signed by nine residents of the same building, who alleged that the applicant was regularly organising loud parties and inviting guests with criminal record, who breached peace and damaged public property.
13.  On 18 June 1998 the Stryy Court ordered the applicant’s eviction referring to Article 109 of the Housing Code and the fact that she had lost occupancy right in respect of the disputed flat. This judgment became final and was enforced on 13 October 1998.
14.  According to the applicant, following eviction she was forced to rent rooms in the flats of various acquaintances and was unable to establish a stable home.
15.  According to the Government, following eviction, the applicant and her two children lived with her mother in the latter’s two-room flat which measured 32 sq. m.
16.  On 13 December 2000 the Stryy Court awarded tenancy of the applicant’s former flat to A.N., who then acquired it from the municipality through a privatisation scheme and sold it on to O.M. soon afterwards.
17.  Following the applicant’s numerous complaints concerning the alleged unfairness of the court decisions depriving her of her occupancy rights, on 30 May 2001 the Presidium of the Lviv Regional Court quashed the judgments of 2 February and 16 March 1998 by way of extraordinary procedure and remitted the applicant’s case to the Stryy Court for a fresh examination.
18.  After several rounds of proceedings, on 7 October 2002 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s right to occupy the disputed flat having rejected the prosecutor’s claim against her. It noted, in particular, that, although the applicant had indeed been absent from the disputed flat for a period exceeding six months before the prosecutor had filed the proceedings, by resuming its occupancy before the case had been examined by the first-instance court, the applicant had restored her right to occupy the disputed flat.
19.  On 27 May 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the above judgment and it became final.
20.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking the invalidation of all the transactions in respect of the disputed flat, O.M.’s eviction and a court order allowing the applicant to move back into the flat.
21.  On 6 July 2005 the Stryy Court found that there was no call to divest O.M. of her title to the flat, as she had acquired it in good faith when the flat had lawfully belonged to A.N. At the same time, regard being had to the decision restoring the applicant’s right to occupy the same flat, it obliged the City Council to provide the applicant with replacement housing unit equivalent to the flat at issue.
22.  This judgment became final and in October 2005 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings.
23.  On 20 October 2005 the City Council informed the applicant that it was unable to execute the judgment at the material time, since it had no available housing and no funds to build new units.
24.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date the City Council offered the applicant a flat located in V. Street, but the applicant refused.
25.  According to the applicant, she was never offered any flats by the City Council.
26.  On 28 June 2006 the bailiffs sent the writ of enforcement back to the applicant as unenforceable. It is not clear whether the applicant was in receipt of the above writ.
27.  On various occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 July 2005 to various authorities.
28.  On 30 May 2007 the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that they saw no reason to intervene in the situation on the applicant’s behalf, as her right to municipal housing had been restored by way of court proceedings, and the bailiffs’ service had initiated the enforcement proceedings, which, according to their information, had been pending at the material time.
29.  On 30 May 2008 the bailiffs’ service informed the applicant, in response to her complaint about delay in the enforcement of the judgment given in her favour, that the enforcement writ had been returned to her in 2006. However, she retained the right to re-introduce it and demand re‑opening of the enforcement proceedings subject to statute of limitation established by applicable law.
30.  In August 2008 the applicant identified a flat located in Sh. Street, which was vacant following the death of its former owner in January 2008, and moved into it. According to the applicant, this accommodation was in a dilapidated state and she had invested substantial sums for repairs and renovation.
31.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking to regularise her occupancy of the flat in Sh. Street.
32.  On 13 October 2010 the court awarded the flat to the municipality as intestate property and allotted to the applicant the right to occupy it under the protected social tenancy scheme.
33.  On 20 July 2012 the applicant acquired the flat from the municipality through a privatisation scheme and registered herself as the owner.