The applicant and his wife live on the top floor in a block of flats. The roof being in a state of disrepair, their flat regularly suffered from leaks in the winter of 2002.

On the same date police officers carried out a search in the applicant’s flat and found 0,528 grams of heroin. Both searches were carried out in presence of two attesting witnesses.

He stated that E.I. regularly came to his flat to clean it and that on 20 January 2001 she had removed several items of jewellery and clothing from his flat.

The latter however refused both flats. 11.     By letter of 28 August 2003 the bailiff informed the applicants that the Town Council had allocated funds for purchasing a flat for them. 12.

an order requiring them not to impede her use of the flat.

of the family” allowance where they were both members of the armed forces.

Ukraine The applicant sued Mr and Mrs S., the occupants of a neighbouring flat, for damages for the loss they had allegedly caused him by helping to dismantle an extension to his flat.

Ukraine (45712/10) Both the applicant and her husband worked at a rubber production company. In 2000 the company provided the applicant’s husband with a flat in which all the family resided.

At around 8.30 a.m. two dog trainers arrived with dogs, inspected the flat and then left. 8.

Once inside the flat, B. produced a knife that he had been carrying in his jacket.

2006 (“the first flat”); a four-room flat with a surface area of 130 sq. m which had been subject to rent control until September 2008 (“the second flat”); a two-room flat with a   surface area of

even though she had made a statutory declaration on 18   December 1990 confirming that she urgently needed the flat for her own use. 28.

    The applicant is the owner of a flat in Florence which he had let to G.F. 10.

    The applicants moved into the flats between June and December 2006.

Subsequently, on 27 August 2010 some people had unsuccessfully attempted to change the locks to the flat and break in.

In particular, he requested to be provided with a two-room flat in Gugark village.

    A.S. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to G.C. and then to his wife L.C. 6.

They argued, however, that the allocation of the new flat, which was three times larger than the applicant’s flat, constituted sufficient compensation for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage suffered

The applicant is the owner of a flat in Naples, which she had let to F.M.

rent continued to apply for the tenant in question in personam (i.e. not in rem to the flat previously occupied by that tenant).