4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Radyansky Nursery School No. 154 in Kyiv (“the school”), a municipal institution, where she was working as a teacher. The other defendant was the school’s principal. The applicant in particular claimed compensation for belated return of her work-record book (трудова книжка). 6.  On 13 April 2000 she lodged another claim seeking the issue of the work-record book’s duplicate containing rectified records. This claim was subsequently joined to the previous one. 7.  On 22 May 2000 the Radyansky District Court of Kyiv (“the Radyansky Court”), later on renamed into the Svyatoshynsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Svyatoshynsky Court”), rejected the applicant’s claim. On 18 October 2000, the Kyiv City Court (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment. On 2 February 2001 the Radyansky Court rejected the applicant’s request to reverse its judgment in the light of newly discovered facts. This decision was upheld on 11 April 2001 by the Court of Appeal. 8.  According to the Government, during the proceedings leading up to 18 October 2000, the applicant filed five procedural requests, two requests to extend the time-limit for lodging an appeal, and two appeals, which met procedural requirements, but delayed the proceedings for about ten days. 9.  By a final judgment of 2 October 2002, the Supreme Court partly allowed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and changed the first instance judgment. Relying on section 2.10 of the Instruction on keeping work-record books of employees, it ordered the school to issue a duplicate of the rectified work-record book containing no record of the applicant’s dismissal that had been found unlawful in other court proceedings. 10.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 2 October 2002 and on the next day, she filed it with the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”) which, on 22 January 2003, commenced enforcement of this judgment. In the period to May 2005 the bailiffs twice suspended and re-opened the enforcement proceedings. In May 2005 they requested the Svyatoshynsky Court to interpret the final judgment as it was not sufficiently clear for enforcement purposes. Their request was, however, rejected on 15 June 2005. 11.  On 16 August 2005 the bailiffs ordered the return of the writ of execution to the applicant. On 4 April 2006 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Shevchenkivsky Court”) quashed the order. 12.  On 27 June 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s and the bailiffs’ request to interpret its judgment. 13.  In April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shevchenkivsky Court against the bailiffs alleging irregularities in the enforcement proceedings. On 16 June 2009 the bailiffs suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of this complaint. On 20 October 2009 the complaint was sent to the Svyatoshynsky Court which, on 21 September 2010, ordered the school to hand in the issued duplicates. 14.  According to the applicant, as of 15 November 2010, her work-record book and unduly issued duplicates were with the domestic courts and for this reason she was not able to become employed. 15.  In February 2003 the applicant lodged another claim with the Shevchenkivsky Court against the same defendants. She requested in particular to quash her dismissal order. On 20 October 2003 the court rejected her claims. On 29 December 2003 and 27 December 2004 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, dismissed the applicant’s appeals.