4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Turbiv, Ukraine. 5.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr L. for inflicting bodily harm on the applicant. 6.  On 11 February 1999 the applicant lodged a civil claim against Mr L. with the Lipovetsky Court (“the court”) claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 7.  On 18 August 1999 the court convicted Mr L. of inflicting bodily harm on the applicant and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. Under the same judgment Mr L. was exempted from serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. The court also partly allowed the applicant's civil claim. 8.  On 6 October 1999 the Vinnitsa Regional Court[1] quashed the judgment of 18 August 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 9.  On 18 December 2000 the court convicted Mr L. of inflicting bodily injury on the applicant and sentenced him to one year's correctional labour. He was exempted from serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the applicant's civil claim. 10.  On 31 January 2001 the Vinnitsa Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment of 18 December 2000 concerning the applicant's civil claim and remitted it for fresh consideration. By the same ruling the regional court upheld the rest of the judgment. 11.  On 8 August 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed a request by the applicant for leave to appeal in cassation against the decisions of the lower courts. 12.  On 26 March 2003 the court partly allowed the applicant's civil claim and awarded him 1,731.11 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary damage and UAH 3,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 13.  On 23 June 2003 the Vinnitsa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 March 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 14.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court. 15.  On 27 February 2006 the Supreme Court gave a final decision on the case, by which it upheld the judgment of 26 March 2003. 16. The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal against the final judgment of the Supreme Court. On 26 February 2007 the Supreme Court refused to grant the applicant's request to reopen proceedings in his case.
II.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 26 MARCH 2003 17.  On 17 May 2007 the Lipovetsky Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 26 March 2003. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Vinnitsa Circuit Administrative Court challenging the bailiffs for inactivity in enforcing the judgment of 26 March 2003. On 24 December 2007 the court refused to consider the applicants' complaint since it had no jurisdiction to consider it. The court indicated in its ruling that the applicant had the right to challenge the bailiffs' inactivity before the Lipovetsky Court. The applicant appealed against the ruling of 24 December 2007. On 7 April 2009 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal declined to consider his appeal. The applicant appealed in cassation. The proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court of Appeal are still pending. 19.  The judgment of 26 March 2003 remains unenforced due to Mr L.'s lack of funds.