4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kirovograd, Ukraine. 5.  On 16 November 2001, 6 March and 13 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Kirovograd awarded the applicant 4,912.67 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1], UAH 4,967.66[2] and UAH 6,025.10[3], respectively, in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer, the Municipal Company “Garantiya” (комунальне підприємство «Гарантія») owned and controlled by the city council. 6.  All these judgments became final and the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 3,190.33 was paid to the applicant. According to the applicant, she had received UAH 2,366.02 only. 7.  Being dissatisfied with the lengthy non-enforcement of these judgments, the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the State Bailiffs’ Service, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 28 March 2003 the court rejected her claim for pecuniary damage but awarded her UAH 500[4] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 7 August 2003 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and the latter became final. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this judgment in cassation before the Supreme Court of Ukraine. 8.  According to the Government, the applicant did not request the State Bailiffs’ Service to institute enforcement proceedings under the judgment of 28 March 2003. The applicant disagreed, providing in support the letter of the State Bailiffs’ Service of 7 June 2006 in which the latter informed her that the judgment of 28 March 2003 had not been enforced due to its lack of funds. 9.  The applicant also complained to various State authorities but to no avail. 10.  On 28 December 2004 the Kirovograd Commercial Court instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor company. 11.  In this regard on 24 and 28 March 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and transferred the applicant’s writs of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending. 12.  All the above-mentioned judgments given in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.