4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and currently resides in the village of Molodezhnoye, the ARC, Ukraine. 5.  On 1 May 1998 the applicant suffered serious bodily injuries in a traffic accident caused by the negligent driving of a police officer. 6.  In January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopil against the Simferopil Branch of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by the accident. On 6 February 2001 the court awarded the applicant 2,288.93[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in compensation for material damage and legal aid, UAH 2,100 in compensation for the loss of earnings and UAH 12,000 in compensation for moral damage. On 18 April 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld this decision in respect of the compensation for material damage and remitted the case for fresh consideration in respect of the compensation for the loss of earnings and for moral damage. 7.  On 24 January 2002 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 6 February 2001 in that part which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the ARC and became final. On 19 April 2002 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on the ground that the judgment should be enforced directly by the State Treasury.  On 16 August 2002 the judgment of 6 February 2001, as upheld by the Supreme Court, was enforced. 8.  In the meantime, on 6 February 2002 the Kyivskyy District Court, after fresh consideration of the applicant's claims concerning compensation for the loss of earnings and moral damage, awarded the applicant UAH 1,470[2] and UAH 8,400[3], respectively. On 29 May 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (former Supreme Court of the ARC) upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed against these judgments in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings. 9.  By a decree of 21 March 2003 the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Treasury of Ukraine decided that all judgments which should be enforced at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine should be enforced by the State Treasury of Ukraine. In May 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv requesting to invalidate this decree as its provisions had not complied with the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. On 25 June 2003 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv found the decree invalid. On 30 October 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 29 March 2006 the High Administrative Court of Ukraine rejected the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. 10.  In July 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopil complaining about the decision of 19 April 2002 to terminate the enforcement proceedings and claiming compensation for material and moral damage. On 22 December 2003 the court found that the decision of 19 April 2002 was unlawful. The court however did not allow the applicant's claims for compensation because the judgment of 6 February 2001 in his favour was enforced. On 5 April 2004 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the judgment of 22 December 2003. On 27 September 2006 the High Administrative Court of Ukraine quashed the judgments of 22 December 2003 and 5 April 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court. 11.  The judgment of 6 February 2002 was enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 11 February 2004.