5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Novovoronezh. 6.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. From April 1998 to April 1999 she received her pension several months in arrears. According to the applicant, inflation during this period meant that the pension paid several months in arrears had lost significant part of its value by the time it was paid. 7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action against the Novovoronezh Social-Security Authority for index-linking of her pension in line with inflation. 8.  On 27 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region found for the applicant and ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant 2,044.87 Russian roubles (RUR) as the pension indexation and RUR 91.79 as a court fee. 9.  The defendant authority did not appeal against the judgment. On 7 November 2000 the judgment came into force. 10.  On 21 November 2000 the Town Court issued a writ of execution for the total amount of RUR 2,136.66. 11.  On 23 November 2000 the Court Bailiffs’ Department of Novovoronezh instituted enforcement proceedings. It invited the Head of the Novovoronezh Social-Security Authority to pay the judgment debt within a fixed time limit. This was not done. 12.  On 6 December 2000 the bailiff issued an order for collection of the money from the defendant’s bank account. However, according to letter No. 3980 of 10 September 2001 from the Court Bailiffs’ Department, no money had entered the defendant’s bank account since 1 November 2000, which made it impossible to enforce the judgment. 13.  The applicant’s complaints about the non-enforcement to the Novovoronezh Town Prosecutor and the Voronezh Region Department of the Ministry of Justice were to no avail. 14.  On 14 December 2000 the bailiff applied to the Novovoronezh Town Court seeking for clarification as to the enforcement of judgments against the Social-Security Authority. By a decision of 17 January 2001 the court rejected this request. 15.  On 5 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Department returned the writ of execution to the applicant notifying her that the judgment of 27 October 2000 could not be enforced because of the defendant’s lack of funds. 16.  The applicant’s further requests for execution of the judgment brought the same negative result communicated to the applicant by the Bailiffs’ Department on 18 October 2001, 30 August 2002, 29 May 2003, 23 June and 26 August 2005. 17.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Bailiffs’ Department anew. 18.  The judgment of 27 October 2000 has not been enforced to date.