4.  The applicants are mother and daughter. They were born in 1945 and 1972 respectively, and live in Kyiv, Ukraine. 5.  At the material time the companies “Spetsenergobud” (дочірнє підприємство «Спеценергобуд») (a subsidiary of “Kyivenergobud” (ВАТ «Київенергобуд»)) and “Atomspetsbud” (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд») were owned by the State. By 29 May 1996 “Kyivenergobud” had been privatised and the State no longer held any shares in it. Atomspetsbud is still owned by the State. 6.  Spetsenergobud and Atomspetsbut were engaged in work on eliminating the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe. 7.  On 8 December 1998 the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv awarded Mr S. – the applicants’ husband and father, respectively – salary arrears in the amount of 5,635 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] to be paid by his former employer, Atomspetsbud. 8.  When that judgment became final, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. 9.  On 19 March 2003 Mr S. died. According to the applicants, they are the only heirs of Mr S. 10.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings the sum of UAH 290.16 was paid to the applicants. The remainder of the debt under the judgment of 8 December 1998 has still not been paid. 11.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, Atomspetsbud was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the existing enforcement proceedings and all the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission as creditors’ claims. 12.  The liquidation proceedings are still pending. 13.  Both applicants worked for Spetsenergobud. In 1998 they resigned. 14.  On 17 December 1998 by two separate judgments the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv awarded the first and the second applicants salary arrears owed to them in the amounts of UAH 4,555.37[2] and UAH 1,137.88[3], respectively, by their former employer. 15.  When those judgments became final, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. On 12 March 2004 those proceedings were terminated as it could not be established that the debtor company had any assets. No information as to whether the applicants challenged the decisions of 12 March 2004 and what other measures were taken by them after that date (for instance, measures aimed to have the enforcement proceedings reinstituted, or to join the liquidation proceedings as creditors, and so on) is available. 16.  The applicants state that the judgments in question have still not been enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor company. They never claimed damages from the State Bailiffs’ Service. 17.  According to an excerpt from the official companies’ register, in April 2007 the debtor company was under liquidation. However, it is not clear when the liquidation proceedings were instituted and whether they are still pending.