4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region. 5.  On 18 April 2002 the Tsentralno-Miskiy Court of Gorlivka awarded the applicant UAH 8,888.37[1] against the State-owned coal-mine Lenina (hereinafter “the Lenina Mine”) in compensation for social benefits arrears and ordered the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant UAH 143.88[2] monthly as of 1 April 2001. This decision became final on 20 May 2002. 6.  On 29 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 18 April 2002. The applicant did not appeal in cassation. 7.  On 6 September 2002 the Kalininsky Bailiffs' Office of Gorlivka (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated the enforcement proceedings in the case. 8.  On 28 December 2002 the Lenina Mine was re-organised into a structural division of the State-owned company “Artemvugillya”, which on 18 August 2004 was re-organised into the State-owned Donetsk Mining Company. 9.  On 22 September 2005 the applicant was paid the total amount of social benefits arrears awarded him under the judgment of 18 April 2002. 10.  To the extent that the judgment of 18 April 2002 concerned the monthly payments to the applicant by the Social Security Fund, it was enforced in due time. 11.  On 29 April 2003 the Kalininsky District Court of Gorlivka (hereinafter “the Kalininsky Court”) ordered the State-owned coal-mine Gayevogo (hereinafter “the Gayevogo Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 4,168.25[3] in compensation for salary arrears. This decision became final on 25 June 2003. 12.  On 27 June 2003 the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings. 13.  Between February 2003 and February 2005 the Donetsk Commercial Court on three occasions initiated and terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against the Gayevogo Mine. 14.  On 3 February 2005 the Kalininsky Court rejected the applicant's claim for compensation against the Gayevogo Mine and the Bailiffs for failure to enforce the judgment of 29 April 2003. 15.  On 1 April 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The applicant's cassation appeal was left without consideration for failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. 16.  On 17 August 2005 the applicant was paid the total amount awarded to him under the judgment of 29 April 2003. 17.  In June 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State Pension Fund seeking reassessment of his pension. On 6 December 2004 the Kalininsky Court found against him. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. In 2005 a similar claim was left without consideration for failure to comply with the procedural formalities.