4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Lugansk. 5.  In 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kamyanobrodsky District Court of Lugansk (Кам’янобродський районний суд м. Луганська) against the Procurement Service of the Lugansk City Council Executive Committee (“the Procurement Service,” Госпрозрахунковий відділ служби забезпечення при управлінні контролю Луганського міськвиконкому) seeking reinstatement to the position of human resources inspector (інспектор з кадрів) and various compensatory payments. 6.  On 24 November 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s reinstatement claim, but awarded her 438.95 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears. 7.  On 4 March 1999 the Lugansk Regional Court (Луганський обласний суд)[1] upheld the judgment to the extent that the applicant was awarded salary arrears, and the judgment in this respect became final. The court remitted the remainder of the applicant’s claims for fresh consideration. 8.  On 2 July 1999 the Kamyanobrodsky District Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and additionally awarded her UAH 650 in compensatory payments. 9.  On 29 July 1999 the Lugansk Regional Court upheld the reinstatement order and remitted the case for fresh consideration in respect of the monetary claims. 10.  On 5 November 1999 the Kamyanobrodsky District Court awarded the applicant UAH 542.52 (instead of UAH 650). 11.  On 10 November 1999 the Kamyanobrodsky District Court additionally awarded the applicant UAH 1,356.30. 12.  The judgment was enforced in the part relating to the reinstatement. However, the Procurement Service was in the process of liquidation, and on 16 December 1999 the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs’ Service,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ленінського районного управління юстиції м. Луганська) transferred the writs of execution to the liquidation commission, having failed to collect the amounts owed to the applicant. 13.  On 17 January 2000 the applicant was made redundant as a result of the liquidation of the Procurement Service. 14.  On 28 March 2000 the Mayor of Lugansk (міський голова) informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the Procurement Service had been liquidated without successors. 15.  In January 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk (Ленінський районний суд м. Луганська) against the Procurement Service and the Lugansk City Council Executive Committee (“the Executive Committee,” Луганський міський виконавчий комітет), seeking to oblige them to enforce the judgments given in her favour and to provide her with various additional compensatory payments. 16.  On 30 August 2001 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claims and awarded her UAH 2,019.51 in compensation from the Procurement Service, having found that its liquidation process had not been finalised. The court rejected the applicant’s claims against the Executive Committee. It found that the Committee bore no liability for the debts of its Procurement Service, as they were registered as two separate legal entities. 17.  On 14 February 2002 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal and it became binding for execution. On 19 February 2004 it was further upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal in cassation. 18.  On 14 March 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings. 19.  On 9 January 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings, having transferred all the writs of execution to the Procurement Service’s liquidation commission. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully lodged complaints with judicial and other authorities seeking to facilitate the enforcement. 20.  According to the case-file materials, the applicant has not received any award due to her under the four judgments.