The relevant domestic law may be found in the judgment of 26 April 2005 in the case of Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, §§ 17-22).

The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002).

However, the Court finds that the debtor was undoubtedly a State-owned enterprise within the meaning of Article 1 of the Law "on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property" (see Sokur v. Ukraine, no. 29439/02, § 18, 26 April 2005).

The Court notes that the applicant did have recourse to the domestic courts against the Bailiffs, which not only did not remedy, but also could not remedy the principal complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 16 December 2003).

The Court notes that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1. While delays in enforcement might be justified in exceptional circumstances, only periods strictly necessary to enable the authorities to find a satisfactory solution are covered (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 69, ECHR 1999-V; and Sokur v. Ukraine, no. 29439/02, § 30, 26 April 2005).

In these circumstances, the issue of State responsibility for the lack of enforcement as such, about which the second applicant complained, does not arise (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 35, 29 June 2004 and Sokur v. Ukraine, no. 29439/02, § 27, 26 April 2005).