4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Magadan, the Magadan Region. 5.  In 2000 she was run over by a car of the Fire Service of the Magadan Region. As a result she became disabled. 6.  On 11 September 2001 the Magadan Town Court (“the Town Court”) granted the applicant's claim against the Fire Service and awarded her 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment entered into force on 26 September 2001. On the same date the Town Court issued a writ of execution. 7.  On 4 October 2001 the Bailiffs' Office of Magadan initiated the enforcement proceedings. 8.  On an unspecified date the defendant informed the bailiff that an appeal had been lodged against the judgment of 11 September 2001. The bailiff requested the Town Court to postpone the execution of the judgment pending the proceedings before the appeal court. On 21 December 2001 the Town Court rejected the bailiff's request, as in the meantime the Magadan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 11 September 2001. On 8 January 2002 the decision of 21 December 2001 became final. 9.  On 11 February 2002 the bailiff submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury for enforcement. However, on 4 March 2002 the Federal Treasury returned the enforcement materials to the bailiff on the ground that the debt had to be recovered from the administration of Magadan. 10.  On 17 June 2002 the Fire Service informed the applicant that the judgment would be enforced by monthly payments. According to the schedule, the final payment was to take place in December 2006. The applicant rejected the proposal and requested to enforce the judgment in full. 11.  On 21 June 2002 the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the writ of execution had been forwarded to the Fire Service and that the latter would make monthly payments to the applicant. 12.  On 11 July 2002 the Prosecutor of Magadan contested the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings. 13.  On 19 July 2002, the bailiff quashed the decision of 21 June 2002, upon the Prosecutor's request, and reopened the enforcement proceedings. 14.  On 16 April 2003 the Town Court found that the debtor had no sufficient funds to honour the judgment debt and granted the Bailiff's request to postpone the enforcement of the judgment until 31 December 2003. On 27 May 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 16 April 2003. 15.  Between 18 November 2002 and 23 June 2003 the applicant received RUB 17,500. 16.  On 7 June 2004 the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the debtor had no sufficient funds. 17.  On 13 August 2004 the Town Court quashed the decision of 7 June 2004, upon the applicant's appeal. The court found that the bailiff had failed to take necessary measures for the enforcement of the judgment of 11 September 2001. The decision entered into force on 31 August 2004. 18.  On 13 September 2004 the Town Court resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs. 19.  On 16 October 2004 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the debtor had no sufficient funds. The applicant was advised to submit the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. 20.  On 10 December 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. 21.  On 31 December 2004 she received the outstanding debt of RUB 82,500 due to her under the judgment of 11 September 2001. 22.  On 15 August 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 536.07 in penalties for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 11 September 2001. The decision entered into force on 31 August 2005. It appears that it has not been enforced.