5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sevastopol. 6.  The applicant worked at the joint-stock company Sevastopolskyy Morskyy Zavod (“the SMZ”). On 30 November 1996 she retired and started working for its subsidiary company, Sevmorremo. 7.  She brought several claims against her former employer, seeking salary arrears and compensation for late payment of salary. 8.  In June 1997 the applicant lodged a claim with the labour disputes commission of the SMZ, seeking salary arrears. On 6 June 1997 the commission awarded her 462.36 hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears (approximately 100 euros (EUR) at the material time). On 17 June 1997 it issued a certificate in respect of that decision. 9.  On 22 July 1997 the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Nakhimovskyy Court”) instituted enforcement proceedings. The applicant received the full amount of the award in two instalments, on 6 February and 28 November 2001 respectively. 10.  On 19 May 1998 the applicant brought a claim in the Nakhimovskyy Court, seeking compensation for the SMZ’s failure to pay her salary arrears in a timely manner. 11.  On 25 August 1998 the court awarded her UAH 1,709.74 (about EUR 369 at the material time) in compensation for the period 1 December 1996 to 25 July 1998. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 12.  On 4 September 1998 the Nakhimovskyy District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment, but it remained unenforced. 13.  On 9 April 2001 the President of the Sevastopol Court lodged with the Presidium of the same court a request for supervisory review (protest) of the Nakhimovskyy Court’s judgment of 25 August 1998. On 27 April 2001 the Presidium allowed the request, quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It held that the first-instance court had failed to provide sufficient reasons for its judgment of 25 August 1998. 14.  On an unspecified date the enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment were discontinued. 15.  In the meantime, on 17 March 1999 the applicant lodged a new claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court, seeking compensation for the SMZ’s failure to pay her salary arrears during the period 26 August 1998 to 17 March 1999. 16.  On 19 May 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s claim. It held that that claim had already been determined in its judgment of 25 August 1998. 17.  The applicant appealed in cassation, contending that her claim concerned new circumstances, in particular the new period of delay in payment of her salary arrears. On 6 June 1999 the Sevastopol Court quashed the decision of 19 May 1999 and adopted a new decision discontinuing the proceedings, relying on the same grounds as the first-instance court. 18.  On 1 March 2001 the applicant lodged another claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court. She sought compensation for the SMZ’s failure to pay her salary arrears from 1 December 1996 to 6 February 2001. 19.  On 14 June 2001 the applicant requested the Nakhimovskyy Court to examine her claims of 19 May 1998 and 1 March 2001 jointly. On 23 July 2001 the court allowed her request. 20.  On 30 August 2001 the court, following a request from the applicant, ordered an expert examination in the case and suspended the proceedings. 21.  On 25 March 2002 the applicant amended her claim and requested compensation for the non-payment of her salary arrears during the period 1 December 1997 to 28 November 2001. 22.  On 4 July 2002 the expert’s report was submitted to the court and the proceedings were resumed. 23.  On 28 January 2004 the court found against the applicant. It held that she had failed to lodge her claims within the three-month limitation period provided by Article 233 of the Labour Code, which had started to run on 6 June 1997, the day the labour disputes commission had awarded her salary arrears. 24.  On 20 May 2004 the Sevastopol Town Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 28 January 2004. On 28 November 2006 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.