4.  The applicant was born in 1927. He died on 23 May 2005. In a letter of 17 January 2006, the applicant's wife Mrs Yelisaveta Vadymivna Prypiyalo (Ratushna) informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application. 5.  In August 1972 the Prosecutor of the Cherkassy District (Прокурор Черкаського району) brought proceedings against the applicant's late mother claiming that her house in the town of Smila should be expropriated as having been built without proper authorisation of the competent local authorities. On 9 March 1973 the People's Court of the Cherkassy District (Народний суд Черкаського району) allowed this application. On 11 April 1973 this judgment was upheld on appeal. 6.  On 27 December 1989 the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic (Верховний Суд УРСР), acting as a supervisory instance, quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for rehearing. 7.  After several rounds of court proceedings on 30 January 1992 the Smiliansky Town Court (Смілянський міський суд) dismissed the prosecutor's application and found the expropriation of the house concerned unlawful. On 4 March 1992 the Cherkassy Regional Court (Черкаський обласний суд) rejected the appeal of the Smila Town Council and upheld this judgment. 8.  As the expropriated house was rented by the Smila Town Council to third persons, the applicant brought proceedings for their eviction. This claim was eventually dismissed by the Cherkassy Regional Court on 7 June 1995. 9.  On an unspecified date in 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against various municipal and State authorities claiming damages incurred by the unlawful expropriation of the disputed house. 10.  On 6 March 1998 the Sosnivsky District Court (Соснівський районний суд, hereafter “the Sosnivsky Court”) rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 13 March 1998 the Cherkassy Regional Court upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Sosnivsky Court for a fresh consideration. 11.  On an unspecified date the Cherkassy Regional Court withdrew the case from the Sosnivsky Court and examined it in the first instance. 12.  On 22 October 1999 the Cherkassy Regional Court partly allowed the applicant's claim, awarding him UAH 12,839.36[1] in compensation for the unlawful expropriation of the house, to be paid by the Cherkassy Regional Department of the State Treasury of Ukraine (Управління державного казначейства України в Черкаській області). 13.  On 16 February 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Верховний суд України) upheld this judgment. 14.  On 15 June 2000 the Sosnivky District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Соснівського районного управління юстиції) instituted the enforcement proceedings. 15.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant brought proceedings in the Sosnivsky Court challenging the inactivity of the bailiff, assigned to deal with his enforcement case. 16.  By letter of 22 December 2000, the Deputy Head of the Cherkassy Regional Department of Justice (Черкаське обласне управління юстиції) informed the applicant that the judgment of 22 October 1999 could not be executed due to the lack of funds in the State budget. 17.  On 31 January 2001 the Sosnivsky Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the bailiff as being unsubstantiated. 18.  On 7 March 2001 the Cherkassy Regional Court upheld this judgment. 19.  By letter of 27 June 2002, the Head of the Cherkassy Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine informed the applicant that the domestic legislation did not provide for the procedure to enable this judgment debt to be paid from the State Budget. 20.  On 17 February 2004 the Sosnivsky District Bailiffs' Service lodged an application with the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Черкаської області, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) claiming that the debt concerned is owed to the applicant by the State Treasury of Ukraine as a whole and not by its Department in the Cherkassy region and that, accordingly, the enforcement case should be processed by the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service of Kyiv (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Печерського району м. Києва), where the central office of the Treasury is located. 21.  On 12 March 2004 the Court of Appeal allowed this application and ordered the writ of execution to be forwarded to the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service, which was done on 2 April 2004. 22.  On 22 April 2004 the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service refused to accept this writ, on the ground that under the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” the applicant's award had to be enforced by the Department of Compulsory Execution of Judgments of the State Bailiffs Service (відділ примусового виконання рішень Державної виконавчої служби). 23.  By letter of 25 March 2005 the Deputy Head of the Department of Compulsory Execution of Judgments of the State Bailiffs Service informed the Agent of the Government that the writ of execution concerned had never been received by this Department. 24.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.