4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Smolensk. 5.  On 2 July 1996 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which a private company was obliged to reimburse the applicant's share in the company's capital stock. On 4 November 1996 the applicant also obtained a court order, which obliged the above company to pay him salary arrears. 6.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice challenging the efficiency of the State Bailiff's Service in the enforcement proceedings and claiming damages. 7.  By a judgment of 27 August 2001 the Promyshlenniy District Court of Smolensk acknowledged that the lack of activity of behalf of the bailiffs made the enforcement of the judgment of 2 July 1996 and the court order of 4 November 1996 impossible and obliged the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant 27,403.47 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and interest at the annual rate of 25%. On 12 March 2002 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 August 2001 on appeal. 8.  On 9 April 2002 the warrant of execution was issued to the applicant, which he submitted to the State Bailiffs' Service on 6 May 2002. However, on 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service returned the warrant of execution to the applicant and informed him that he should submit it to the Federal Treasury. 9.  On an unspecified date the applicant submitted the warrant of execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 14 June 2002 the Federal Treasury returned the warrant of execution to the applicant for the following reasons: the judgment of 27 August 2001 did not indicate which of the debtor's accounts the sum adjudicated by the court should be debited to, the copy of the judgment was not duly certified and the warrant of execution contained no indication as to the deadline for its submission. 10.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant again attempted to submit the warrant of execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 7 October 2002 the Federal Treasury once again returned the warrant of execution to the applicant, because it contained certain corrections, whereas it should have been filled out accurately. 11.  The judgment of 27 August 2001 has remained unenforced to date.