5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Novaya Kakhovka, the Kherson Region, Ukraine. 6.  On 4 November 2003[1] the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered the joint stock company “Pivdenelektronmash” (“the company”), in which the State holds 75 % of the shares, to pay the applicant 37,237.36[2] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears owed to her husband who died in October 2002. 7.  There were bankruptcy proceedings pending against the company at that time. 8.  On 2 December 2003 the Nova Kakhovka Bailiffs’ Office (“the Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings. The writ of execution was joined to other enforcement proceedings pending against the company. 9.  Following the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region of 27 February 2004, the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 November 2003 were suspended. 10.  On 1 November 2004 the Nova Kakhovka Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the alleged inactivity of the Bailiffs. This decision was upheld on 10 March 2005 by the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal. 11.  On 1 July 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed. 12.  On 7 May 2006 the company paid the applicant UAH 8,938[3]. 13.  By its judgment of 2 June 2006 the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered that the company pay the applicant UAH 7,812[4] in compensation for failure to pay in time the award under the judgment of 4 November 2003. 14.  On 13 June 2006 the Bailiffs instituted the enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment. 15.  According to the applicant, the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings concerning the judgment of 4 November 2003 on the ground of false information provided by the company about the settlement of the debt. The applicant requested the Nova Kakhovka Court to provide her with a new writ of execution, which she submitted to the Bailiffs on 18 July 2006. 16.  On 20 July 2006 the Bailiffs instituted new enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 November 2003. 17.  The judgments of 4 November 2003 and 2 June 2006 remain unenforced due to the company’s difficult financial situation.