5.  The applicant resides in the town of Vinnytsa. He is a former employee of the Oil and Gas State Inspection (“the Inspection”) of the State Oil and Gas Committee “Derzhnaftogazprom” (“the Committee”). 6.  On 12 July 1999 the Committee decided to liquidate the Inspection. According to the Government, the liquidation of the Inspection was not accomplished. 7.  On 20 August 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his position of the Chief State Inspector of the Vinnytsya Town Department of the Inspection. 8.  On 25 November 1999 the President of Ukraine liquidated the Committee and established a liquidation commission for this purpose. By order of 14 April 2000, the President appointed the Ministry of Fuel and Gas of Ukraine as the Committee’s successor. 9.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya against commission overseeing the liquidation of the Committee, seeking recovery of salary arrears in respect of the period before 12 July 1999 and compensation. 10.  On 12 December 2000 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Committee’s liquidation commission (“the Debtor”) to pay the applicant UAH 1,549[1] in salary arrears and other payments. 11.  On 9 February 2001 the Shevchenkivskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv instituted enforcement proceedings. 12.  On 19 February 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service submitted to the Debtor’s bank a payment order in respect of the judgment award. 13.  On 22 February 2001 the bank returned the payment order to the Bailiffs’ Service on the grounds that the Debtor’s account had been closed. 14.  On 28 February 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the results of an enquiry about other bank accounts which the Debtor might have had. 15.  On 26 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that no other bank accounts of the Debtor had been found. 16.  On 23 June 2001 the Bailiff’s Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the execution writ to the applicant on the grounds that it had not been possible to find the Debtor at its address and the latter had no bank accounts. 17.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs’ Service of 23 June 2001 before the domestic courts. 18.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.