4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Pechora, Komi Republic. 5.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant was dismissed from her post of accountant in a private company TOO SIAP (“the company”). She sued the company claiming reinstatement in her post, non-pecuniary damages, salary arrears and unpaid allowances (child allowance, annual leave allowance and maternity allowance). According to the applicant, she lodged her statement of claim (apparently concerning pecuniary claims) with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ryazan on 22 September 1995. The Government claimed that the proceedings started on an unspecified date in 1997. In October 1997 she moved to another town. According to her, she informed the court of her new address. 6.  On 24 November 1997 the District Court decided to process her pecuniary claims separately. By a judgment of 25 November 1997, the District Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement in her post and awarded her 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was not present at the hearing. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 5 December 1997. A copy of the judgment was sent to the applicant on 22 December 1997, apparently to her previous address. Another copy was sent on 28 May 1998 to her new address. The applicant received it in June 1998. It appears that neither copy was accompanied by a writ of execution. 7.  In November 1998 and then in June 2001 the applicant enquired about the state of proceedings regarding the pecuniary claims. It appears that these requests remained unanswered. 8.  Apparently in April 2002 the applicant learnt that the case file regarding her pecuniary claims had been lost by the court registry. On 30 November 2002 she asked the district court to restore the file, which was done on 14 February 2003. On 28 October 2003 the judge decided to process separately the applicant’s claims for maternity allowance, annual leave allowance and salary arrears. By a judgment of the same date, the court granted her claims for child allowance arrears. 9.  On 19 January 2004 the District Court granted in part the applicant’s claims for salary arrears, maternity allowance and annual leave allowance. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final. 10.  Upon the applicant’s request, on 28 September 2004 the Presidium of the Ryazan Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a re-examination of the claims. 11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 June 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims. On 22 July 2005 the judge rectified technical errors in this judgment. The applicant was awarded RUB 557,483 in unpaid salary; RUB 48,960 in annual leave allowance; and RUB 76,163 in maternity allowance. It appears that the judgment of 14 June 2005 and the decision of 22 July 2005 were not appealed against and became final. 12.  It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant instituted a separate set of civil proceedings against the company. The applicant submitted that by a judgment of 18 December 2006 the District Court granted her claims against the company. The applicant did not substantiate the existence of these proceedings by any documentary evidence. 13.  It appears that in October 1998 the applicant learnt that the company director refused to reinstate her and to pay her compensation in accordance with the judgment of 25 November 1997 (see paragraph 6 above). Thus, in November 1998 she wrote to the President of the District Court asking for enforcement of the judgment in her favour. She renewed her request in May 2001. Apparently, she received no replies to the above letters from the District Court. 14.  However, by a letter of 12 October 2001 the regional bailiffs’ office informed the applicant that there was no record of any enforcement proceedings against the defendant company. In December 2001 the applicant complained about the situation to the Supreme Court of Russia, which re-directed the matter to the Ryazan Regional Court. In February 2002 the Regional Court informed the applicant that no writ of execution had been issued with the judgment of 25 November 1997 because the applicant had not requested such a writ or sought to enforce the judgment. 15.  Upon the applicant’s request, on 4 April 2002 the District Court issued a duplicate of the writ of execution. The court established that in 1997 no writ of execution had been issued due to a mistake by the court registry, which had not complied with the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 24 below). 16.  Enforcement proceedings were then opened on 19 June 2002. Having established that the defendant company had changed its address, in October 2002 the bailiff identified its new location and owners. Having received no information about the progress in the enforcement proceedings, on 18 February 2003 the applicant again complained to the President of the District Court. Upon her complaint, on 31 March 2003 the District Court established that the bailiff had failed (i) to seek judicial authorisation to change the defendant company in the enforcement proceedings to its successor, OOO SIAP, and (ii) to inform the applicant of the progress of the proceedings. 17.  On 22 December 2003 the bailiff service informed the applicant that they had not been able to identify any property or assets belonging to the debtor; although it was registered with the tax authority, the company had not been present at the address given to the bailiff service. On 5 March 2004 the District Court changed the defendant company to OOO SIAP. 18.  On an unspecified date, the Russian authorities opened criminal proceedings against the company’s director Mr L for failure to enforce the judgments in the applicant’s favour. In May 2004 he was questioned by the bailiff and stated that his company had ceased its business activity in 2001 and that he could not liquidate it because he was no longer in possession of the company seal and the articles of incorporation. On 9 June 2004 criminal proceedings against Mr L were discontinued. According to the Government, on an unspecified date Mr L was fined in relation to the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 November 1997. 19.  It appears that on an unspecified date the bailiffs’ office joined the enforcement files in respect of the judgment of 25 November 1997 and a new judgment dated 28 October 2003 in the applicant’s favour (see paragraph 8 above). 20.  In February and April 2004 the bailiff invited the applicant to advance costs for organising a search for the assets of the debtor that could be used to fulfil the obligation stemming from the above judgments. The applicant refused. In May 2004 the bailiff wrote to the applicant stating that no search was needed as the debtor carried out no business activity and had no bank accounts or property. 21.  It appears that on an unspecified date, the bailiffs’ office joined the enforcement files in respect of the above two judgments and a new judgment of 14 June 2005 in the applicant’s favour (see paragraph 11 above). 22.  In June 2005 the applicant was informed that the debtor had no funds or assets which could be seized for enforcement purposes. 23.  On 16 March 2007 the debtor was removed from the register of legal entities due to its liquidation. On 14 May 2007 the District Court granted the bailiff’s request and discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 25 November 1997.