5.  The applicants, Ms Snežana Boucke (“the first applicant”) and Ms Kristina Boucke (“the second applicant”), were born in 1951 and 1988 respectively and live in Kruševac, Serbia. 6.  On 21 May 1988 the first applicant gave birth to the second applicant, born out of wedlock. 7.  On 18 August 1992 the District Court in Düsseldorf ruled that M.J., from Montenegro, was the father of the second applicant and ordered him to pay child maintenance. 8.  On 29 October 1999 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kruševac (Serbia) confirmed (priznao) the decision of the Düsseldorf District Court. It would appear that enforcement of this judgment has never been sought. 9.  On an unspecified date the second applicant instituted proceedings against M.J. seeking child maintenance. As she was a minor at the time she was represented by the first applicant as her legal guardian. 10.  On 23 December 1997 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kruševac issued a judgment ordering M.J. (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay 62,500 Yugoslav dinars (YUD) for the maintenance accrued between 1 July 1988 and 30 June 1997, with statutory interest, plus YUD 960 for the costs of proceedings. This judgment became final on 10 February 1998. 11.  On 13 April 1998 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Herceg Novi (Montenegro) issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju) providing that the amount due would be paid by the sale of the debtor’s movable assets. On 22 October 1998 the debtor’s objection (prigovor) in this regard was rejected. 12.  On 29 October 1998 the court bailiff established that the debtor had no movable assets of his own, as he lived at his father-in-law’s house. The debtor, for his part, submitted in addition that he was paying 70% of his salary for the maintenance of two other children. 13.  On 12 November 1998 the Court of First Instance informed the second applicant that the debtor was insolvent, as he had no movable assets which could be sold to allow the judgment in question to be enforced. 14.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the debtor paid YUD 600 towards his debt. 15.  On 14 January 1999 the second applicant sought enforcement of the remainder of the decision by attachment of the debtor’s salary, which request was repeated on 7 August 2000, 19 February 2001, and 7 May, 1 July and 3 September 2004. 16.  It would appear that on 1 July 2004 the second applicant complained to the Montenegrin Ministry of Justice about the work of the relevant Court of First Instance. On 12 July 2004 the judge who was in charge of the enforcement as of May 2004, in reply to this complaint, informed the president of the Court of First Instance that he “considered the complaint justified (osnovana).” 17.  On 12 July 2004 the said judge informed the second applicant that the enforcement proceedings in her case had been resumed. 18.  On 24 September 2004 an expert witness submitted to the Herceg Novi court a recalculation of the amount owed in euros, the amount due being 6,352.42 euros (EUR). 19.  On 8 November 2004 the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi requested the second applicant’s lawyer to provide the necessary bank details so that a corresponding enforcement order could be issued. 20.  Between 13 December 2004 and 28 December 2004 the said court attempted to contact the second applicant and also sought assistance from the relevant Internal Affairs Secretariat as well as a Social Care Centre in Serbia. 21.  On 27 January 2005 the first applicant provided the court with the requested bank details. 22.  On 4 March 2005 the Herceg-Novi court issued another enforcement order, providing that one third of the debtor’s monthly income was to be transferred to the first applicant as the second applicant’s legal guardian. 23.  On 17 March 2005 the debtor lodged an objection, stating, inter alia, that he was supporting a family of four, two of whom were minor children, as well as paying 50% of his salary for the maintenance of another child. He proposed to pay one-sixth of his income for the enforcement in question. 24.  On 16 May 2007 the Court of First Instance rejected the debtor’s objection and upheld its enforcement order of 4 March 2005, without considering the debtor’s arguments in respect of his financial commitments. 25.  On 20 October 2010 the same court forwarded the enforcement order of 4 March 2004 to the Power Supply Company (Elektroprivreda – Filijala Herceg Novi), the debtor’s employer, a State-owned company. 26.  On an unspecified date thereafter the second applicant would appear to have informed the Court of First Instance that the said enforcement order had not been complied with, apparently because the debtor was paying off several loans. 27.  On 19 November 2010 the Court of First Instance approached the debtor’s employer, reminding them that the child maintenance, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Family Act and the Enforcement Act, had priority over all the other pecuniary obligations of the debtor and that the employer was therefore obliged to comply with the enforcement order. 28.  On 14 December 2010 the Court of First Instance ordered the debtor’s employer to transfer to the second applicant the amount that was otherwise retained by the employer on a monthly basis on account of a loan owed by the debtor to the employer (see paragraph 37 below). 29.  This decision would appear not to have been enforced to date. 30.  On an unspecified date the second applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings against M.J. seeking child maintenance. She was represented by the first applicant as her legal guardian. 31.  On 30 June 2004, after two remittals, the Municipal Court in Kruševac gave a judgment ordering M.J. to pay 8% of his monthly income from 18 February 1998, plus YUD 48,600 for the costs of proceedings. This judgment became enforceable on 23 May 2005. 32.  The applicants maintain that they sought enforcement of this judgment, but have submitted no evidence in that regard, even though they have been requested by the Court to do so on at least three occasions. 33.  This judgment would appear not to have been enforced to date. 34.  On an unspecified date the second applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings against the debtor, seeking an increase of the child maintenance established by the decision of 30 June 2004 (see paragraph 31 above). On 17 September 2009 the Municipal Court in Kruševac gave a decision stating that the second applicant’s claim had been withdrawn. On 2 October 2009 the second applicant appealed against this decision. These proceedings appear to be still pending. 35.  On 3 February 1997 the debtor and his spouse at the time lodged with the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi a plea for dissolution of their marriage, proposing to the court, inter alia, that the debtor’s spouse be given custody of their two minor children, born in 1990 and 1995 respectively, and that the debtor pay in respect of child maintenance 50% of his monthly income. There is no decision of a domestic court in this regard in the case file. 36.  On 17 July 2009, in criminal proceedings, the debtor was found guilty of not paying child maintenance to the second applicant between 23 May 2005 and 30 January 2006, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of one year. It would appear that the decision is still pending on appeal. 37.  The debtor’s payslip of October 2010 specified that he earned EUR 559.89 per month, 62% of which he was paying towards two loans. The payslip indicates that the debtor had taken one of those loans from his employer in a total amount of EUR 5,500 ten months earlier, to be repaid over ten years, and that the other loan had been taken from a bank that very month in a total amount of EUR 54,295.75, to be repaid over fifteen years. It also transpires that over an unspecified ten-year period before October 2010 the debtor had been paying off a third loan, the monthly payment of which amounted to approximately 20% of his monthly income.