4.  The applicant was born in 1960. She died in June 2008. Her widower, Mr Kutsenko Oleh Mykolayovych, submitted that he wished to pursue the application. 5.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bahliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (“the Bahliyskyy Court”) against the State Bailiffs’ Service. She sought compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage allegedly caused by lengthy non-enforcement of two judgments given in her favour against a State enterprise. The debtor State enterprise participated in the proceedings as a third party. 6.  On 10 July 2001 the Bahliyskyy Court found no fault on the part of the Bailiffs and rejected the applicant’s claims. 7.  On 26 November 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 July 2001 because of the failure of the first‑instance court to assess all the circumstances of the case and to give reasons for its decision and remitted the case for fresh examination. 8.  On 25 September 2003 the Bahliyskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It noted that the judgments of 15 March 2000 and 25 February 2001 had been enforced in full on 6 July 2000 and 5 April 2002, respectively, and found no fault on the part of the Bailiffs for the alleged lengthy enforcement of the judgments. 9.  On 30 June 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal which she had to re-submit on two occasions in order to comply with procedural requirements and upheld the judgment of 25 September 2003. 10.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. 11.  On 29 May 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, found no grounds to review the applicant’s case in cassation. 12.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant supplemented her claims on four occasions. Six times the proceedings were adjourned on the applicant’s request or because of her or her representative’s failure to appear which in total caused a delay of about six months. Sixteen times the proceedings were adjourned because of other participants’ (respondent, third party, experts) failure to appear or on their requests and on two occasions because of the absence of the judge which in total caused a delay of one year and five months.