4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Vinnytsia. 5.  On 20 May 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position of managing director of a private company, V.Ph. 6.  In May 1997 he instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsia (“the Leninsky Court”) against a joint-stock company, V.M., the owner of V.Ph., seeking: reinstatement as director; recovery of salary arrears for the period of involuntary leave between dismissal and reinstatement; recovery of court fees; and compensation for loss of working time. 7.  On 17 April 2001 the Zhytomyr Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), following several hearings in the case, endorsed a friendly settlement between the applicant and V.M., pursuant to which V.M. undertook to reinstate the applicant and pay him the amounts claimed. 8.  V.M. paid the applicant the amounts due to him pursuant to the friendly settlement. On 17 April 2001 it approved his reinstatement but on 18 April 2001 it issued a resolution abolishing the position of the director of V.Ph. on the grounds of a reduction in staff. On 19 April 2001 V.M. made the applicant redundant as of 20 April 2001. 9.  On 14 May 2001, at the applicant’s request, the Regional Court issued a warrant of execution in relation to its ruling of 17 April 2001. The applicant lodged the warrant with the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”). 10.  On 7 August 2001 the bailiffs terminated the enforcement of the Regional Court’s judgment. On 7 September 2001 the Leninsky Court quashed the termination, holding that the ruling in question had only been partially enforced because the applicant had not in fact been allowed to perform his job. 11.  On 9 August 2002, 8 July and 20 August 2003 and 12 August 2005 respectively, the Leninsky Court quashed the bailiffs’ subsequent resolutions terminating the enforcement and ordered them to enforce the ruling of 17 April 2001. 12.  On 17 February and 26 April 2004, the Leninsky Court and the Regional Court respectively issued reminders to the bailiffs that the ruling of 17 April 2001 remained unenforced. 13.  On 14 June 2004 the Regional Court issued a duplicate of the warrant. On 16 July 2004 it reprimanded the bailiffs for their continued non‑enforcement. 14.  According to the applicant, the ruling at issue remains unenforced. 15.  On 16 July 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court against the bailiffs, complaining of their failure to enforce the ruling of 17 April 2001 and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 16.  In a judgment of 28 October 2002 the Leninsky Court awarded the applicant damages and ordered the bailiffs to enforce the ruling concerned. 17.  On 18 March 2003 the same court, following the bailiffs’ request for review in the light of newly discovered facts, quashed its above-mentioned judgment. 18.  In two separate rulings of 23 October 2003 it terminated the proceedings, leaving the applicant’s claim for compensation without consideration. The applicant appealed against the first ruling. 19.  On 2 December 2003 the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the ruling at issue. The applicant appealed in cassation. 20.  On 27 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine transferred the case to the Higher Administrative Court which, on 25 July 2007, returned the case to the Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction. According to the Government, on 13 August 2007 the case was transferred to the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal in accordance with new cassation procedures. 21.  On 8 January 2008 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, quashed the decision of 2 December 2003, stating that the lower court had misapplied the law, and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal. 22.  According to the Government, on 19 March 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the Leninsky Court’s ruling of 23 October 2003. The applicant did not contest this statement, nor did he inform the Court of any further appeals. 23.  On 29 December 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court against the bailiffs, challenging their refusal to institute enforcement proceedings regarding an unspecified judgment in his favour. 24.  On 8 February 2005 the court left his action without consideration noting that the Court of Appeal was competent to deal with it. 25.  On 24February 2005 the Court of Appeal, having found that the applicant’s action was outside its jurisdiction, left it unexamined. 26.  On 23 October 2007 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld this decision. 27.  In March 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal against V.M., seeking recovery of salary arrears for the period from 19 June 2001 to 1 March 2003. 28.  On 7 July 2002 the court rejected his claims as unsubstantiated. 29.  On 4 December 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment. 30.  Since September 2002 the applicant had repeatedly requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against various managers of V.M. who, according to him, were partially responsible for the non-enforcement of the ruling of 17 April 2001. 31.  The criminal proceedings were opened, closed and subsequently resumed several times following the applicant’s complaints to the courts: most recently on 25 March 2009, the District Court quashed a decision by the prosecutor to terminate the investigation. By letter of 17 April 2009 the applicant informed the Court that the investigation was pending before the prosecutors, but that he had not been granted victim status.