4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Khmelnytskyy. 5.  On 5 February 1999 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Khmelnytskyy Court (Хмельницький міський суд) seeking moral damages from the State for allegedly unlawful actions of the law-enforcement authorities in connection with a criminal prosecution discontinued in 1998. 6.  After several reconsiderations of the claim, on 19 July 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Court awarded the applicant 3,000 hryvnyas (UAH). 7.  On 16 October 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court (Апеляційний суд Хмельницької області) decreased the amount of compensation to UAH 140. The operative part of the decision indicated that it immediately gained binding effect and that the award was payable upon the applicant’s presentation of the decision to the local department of the State Treasury. 8.  On 1 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the decision of 16 October 2001. Since then the applicant has unsuccessfully sought re-opening of the proceedings and award of higher compensation. 9.  On 9 November 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Court issued the applicant with an enforcement writ in respect of the judgment of 19 July 2001 as amended by the decision of 16 October 2001. 10.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the Khmelnytskyy State Treasury Department (“the Khmelnytskyy Treasury”; Відділення державного казначейства у м. Хмельницькому). 11.  On 19 March 2002 the Khmelnytskyy Treasury informed the applicant that they decided to return the writ unenforced, as, in particular, the payment due to him had to be made by the National Bank (Національний банк України) to the order of the Bailiffs’ Service. 12.  In June 2002 the applicant challenged the failure of the Khmelnytskyy Treasury to ensure enforcement of the judgment in his favour by way of lodging an administrative complaint with the Khmelnytskyy Court. In his submissions he noted that the Treasury in fact had never returned him the enforcement writ and so he had not been able to submit it to the Bailiffs’ Service. On 4 September 2002 the court dismissed his complaint as unsubstantiated. On 26 November 2002 the Regional Court further dismissed the applicant’s appeal and on 25 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 13.  In the meantime, on 16 August 2002 the Khmelnytskyy Court transferred, of its own motion, the writ of enforcement in respect of the judgment in the applicant’s favour to the Pecherskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv (“the Pecherskyy Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Печерського району м. Києва). 14.  On 28 August 2002 the Pecherskyy Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings and invoiced the National Bank for UAH 140. The invoice contained the name of “Lukyanchuk” instead of “Lukyanchenko” as the beneficiary. On 3 September 2002 the National Bank transferred the payment in favour of Mr Lukyanchuk to the Pecherskyy Bailiffs’ deposit account and the relevant handwritten entry mentioning Mr Lukyanchuk as the beneficiary was introduced into the Pecherskyy Bailiffs’ record book. 15.  On 16 September 2005 the applicant requested the Khmelnytskyy Court to issue him with a duplicate enforcement writ, noting that having never received the unenforced writ back from the Khmelnytskyy Treasury he had been unable to locate it and claim the judgment award. 16.  On 17 October 2005 the Khmelnytskyy Court requested the Pecherskyy Bailiffs to provide information concerning the status of the enforcement. On 12 January 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Court sent a reminder requesting an urgent reply. On 26 January 2006 the Pecherskyy Bailiffs informed the Khmelnytskyy Court that, following expiration of the three-year statutory term for keeping unclaimed deposits, in September 2005 the sum due to the applicant had been transferred to the State budget and on 29 December 2005 a decision had been taken to return the enforcement writ to the applicant. In the same letter they noted that according to the statutory provisions, the National Bank was to keep the writ. 17.  On 28 March 2006 the Khmelnytskyy Court rejected the applicant’s request to issue a duplicate writ, having noted, referring to the Pecherskyy Bailiffs’ letter, that the original writ had not been lost and that it had been kept by the National Bank. On 11 May 2006 the Regional Court upheld this ruling on the applicant’s appeal. 18.  On 17 May 2006 the National Bank informed the applicant that it had received no writ of enforcement in respect of a judgment in his favour. 19.  The judgment given in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced to the present date.