4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and currently resides in the town of Vasylkiv, Kyiv Region, Ukraine. 5.  The applicant and her ex-husband are doctors. They have established several NGOs among which are “Lyubava” and “Rodyna” NGOs. 6.  On 15 April 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant's ex-husband allegedly for the misappropriation of humanitarian aid. On the same day, in the course of these criminal proceedings, the applicant was arrested, her apartment and garages were searched and some of the applicant's property was seized. The police also seized some documents of the “Lyubava” NGO. 7.  On 16 April 1999 a judge of the Vasylkivskyy Town Court ordered the applicant's detention for three days under the administrative procedure for failure to comply with the orders given to her by the police and the refusal to let the police officers search her apartment. 8.  On 19 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime. According to the applicant, she was interrogated at night and the police officers threatened her, and she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during interrogations and during her detention. 9.  On 20 April 1999, allegedly because of her mental problems and the general deterioration of her health, the applicant was brought by the police to a mental hospital. On 21 April 1999 the applicant was released upon a written undertaking not to abscond but stayed in the hospital until 30 April 1999. On 30 April 1999 the written undertaking not to abscond was cancelled. According to the applicant, she was informed thereof only by letter of 23 June 2006. 10.  On 23 May 2000 the President of the Kyiv Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 April 1999 and closed the case for lack of the evidence of an administrative offence. 11.  On 20 April 2001 the Vasylkivskyy Town Court awarded the applicant 2,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful decision of the court, UAH 8.68[2] in compensation for the loss of income and UAH 300[3] in compensation for costs and expenses to be paid from the State budget. This decision was upheld on 22 May 2001 by the Kyiv Regional Court in the part concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant's complaint about the pecuniary damage (loss of income) was remitted for a fresh consideration. The court did not pronounce itself on the claim for compensation for costs and expenses. 12.  On 8 August 2001 the Vasylkivskyy Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 412[4] in compensation for the loss of income, and costs and expenses. 13.  On 9 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgments of the Vasylkivskyy Town Court of 20 April and 8 August 2001. 14.  On 26 April 2002 the judgments of 20 April and 8 August 2001 were enforced in full. 15.  The applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Vasylkivskyy Town Court claiming compensation for the loss of income and non-pecuniary damage inflicted by her unlawful arrest and detention, and the unlawful actions of the police. On 11 October 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 15,030[5] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and UAH 950[6] in compensation for costs and expenses. On 19 February 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (former Kyiv Regional Court) reduced the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage up to UAH 10,030[7]. On 23 September 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment. 16.  On 11 May 2002 the judgment of 19 February 2002 was enforced in full. 17.  On 31 January 2002 the Vasylkivskyy Town Court ordered the Vasylkivskyy Town Department of the Ministry of Interior to return the property confiscated from the applicant in April 1999 during the search of her apartment. It also ordered the Department to pay the applicant UAH 1,050[8] in compensation for costs and expenses. On 26 April 2002 the applicant received the above amount. According to the applicant, she has also received 6% of the seized property. 18.  On 18 June 2002 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv refused to consider the applicant's administrative complaint lodged against the Regional State Treasury Department, the National Bank of Ukraine and the Pecherskyy District Bailiffs' Service for improper enforcement of the judgments in her favour, as it should have been heard under the civil procedure and not in the course of the administrative proceedings. This ruling was upheld on 16 January 2003 by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. The parties did not provide any further information about these proceedings. 19.  On 28 October 2003 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv rejected the applicant's claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour. On 28 January 2004 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 17 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.