4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Mykolayiv. 5.  The applicant is a former employee of the State-owned enterprise “Mashproekt” (hereinafter “MP”). In June 1999 staff of this enterprise refused to issue upon the applicant's request a certificate about his work and salary, which he required for the re-calculation of his retirement pension. 6.  On 14 December 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Mykolayiv (hereinafter “the District Court”) ordered MP to provide the applicant with the requested certificate. In particular, the court ordered MP to certify that as of 30 March 1978 the applicant worked as the head of one of MP's departments. This judgment became final on 19 January 2000. 7.  On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky Bailiffs' Office of Mykolayiv (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings. On 29 March 2000 the proceedings were terminated. 8.  On 2 August 2000 the District Court ordered the Bailiffs to resume the enforcement proceedings. 9.  On 23 August 2002 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as the director of MP had sent a letter to the applicant. 10.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint against this decision. 11.  On 18 January 2005 the District Court quashed the Bailiffs' decision of 23 August 2002 and ordered resumption of the enforcement proceedings. 12.  On 30 May 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed. 13.  On 18 November 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as on 17 November 2005 MP provided the applicant with the certificate. 14.   On 13 November 2006 the Head of the Bailiffs quashed the decision of 18 November 2005 on the ground that the certificate provided to the applicant did not comply with the requirements ordered by the judgment of 14 December 1999. 15.  The judgment of 14 December 1999 remains unenforced. 16.  In January 2002 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint against the director of MP seeking to be admitted to his work position. 17.  On 8 February 2002 the District Court left the applicant's claim without consideration as the issue should be examined within the civil proceedings. 18.  On 3 April 2002 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed this ruling and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 19.  On 17 February 2003 the District Court left the applicant's administrative complaint without consideration and explained that the applicant should lodge a claim within the civil proceedings. 20.  On 23 April 2003 and 5 July 2004 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this ruling.