4.  The applicant, Ms Tatyana Nikolayevna Kislaya, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and resides in the city of Lugansk, Ukraine. 5.  On 21 June 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk (Ленінський районний суд м. Луганська) against her former employer, the “Lugansky Verstatobudivny Zavod” State-owned plant («Луганський верстатобудівний завод») “the enterprise”, challenging her dismissal and disciplinary measures against her and claiming various payments. 6.  On 1 March 2001 the court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation. 7.  On 7 May 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court (Луганський обласний суд)[1] upheld this judgment on appeal in cassation by the applicant and it became final. 8.  On 17 August 2001 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court of Ukraine pursuant the newly introduced cassation procedure. 9.  On 13 December 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first-instance court. 10.  On 20 May 2002 the Leninsky Court annulled disciplinary measures imposed on the applicant, ordered her reinstatement and awarded her the total of 2,364 hryvnyas (UAH) in various payments. Both parties appealed. 11.  On 18 November 2002 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20 May 2002 to the extent that it concerned the monetary award and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration. The part of the judgment concerning the reinstatement of the applicant was upheld, became final and was enforced by the end of May 2003. 12.  On 5 March 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 18 November 2002. 13.  On 27 February 2004 the Leninsky Court awarded the applicant the total of UAH 11,733.92 in various payments. Both parties appealed. 14.  On 21 June 2004 the Regional Court reduced the monetary award due to the applicant to UAH 4,971.82. This judgment immediately became enforceable. 15.  On 27 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 16.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some thirty hearings. Some fifteen of them were adjourned on account of the defendant’s failures to appear or following its requests for adjournments. Three hearings were adjourned for various other reasons. 17.  On numerous occasions the bailiffs referred to the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor as the reason for a delay in the enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour. On 24 December 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 364 and on 23 February 2006 received the remainder of the award. 18.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant was dismissed again. On 12 January 2004 she instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky Court challenging her dismissal and claiming compensation. 19.  On 15 June 2005 the court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and awarded her UAH 2,517.96 in compensation. The part of the judgment concerning the reinstatement of the applicant immediately became enforceable and was enforced by 8 February 2006. On 29 September 2005 this judgment was upheld by the Regional Court and became enforceable. 20.  On 1 December 2006 the judgment was further upheld by the Supreme Court. 21.  On 12 June 2007 the applicant received the payment due to her by the judgment of 15 June 2005.