5.  By a court decision the applicant was under an obligation to provide financial support in the amount of a quarter of his income for his child, who was living separately. 6.  In November 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State bailiffs service, claiming that they had erroneously determined his debt for child support in the amount of 75,083.05 hryvnias (UAH)[1] and that they had taken wrongful actions to ensure the collection of the debt. The applicant claimed, in particular, that the bailiffs had determined the debt on the basis of the gross earnings the applicant had received as a private entrepreneur, without deducting the expenses he had incurred in the course of those activities. The bailiffs objected to the claim and submitted that they had received the information about the applicant’s income from the tax authorities. 7.  The court ordered an expert accounting report to determine the actual income of the applicant at the relevant time. 8.  In June 2007 the expert provided the report, indicating that the applicant had submitted to the tax authorities the information about his gross earnings obtained in the course of his business activities. The expert further concluded that the applicant’s actual income was much lower than that determined by the bailiffs and that the debt for child support constituted UAH 1,650.90[2]. 9.  On 9 November 2007 the Zhytomyr District Court, relying on the expert report, found that the bailiffs had wrongly determined the amount of child-support debt. 10.  On 13 February 2008 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above decision and dismissed the applicant’s claim as unfounded. The Court of Appeal considered that the first-instance court had needlessly ordered an expert accounting report which was based on the tax legislation, given that the amount of child support was not a matter of tax law. The Court of Appeal noted that the bailiffs had relied on the official data obtained from the authorities and had correctly determined the amount of debt by referring to the available information on the applicant’s income. The Court of Appeal then added that the applicant had not provided any evidence to disprove the amounts of income determined by the bailiffs. 11.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the Court of Appeal had endorsed the bailiffs’ calculation without dealing with his objections based on the expert report. 12.  On 9 July 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, stating in general terms that the Court of Appeal had taken a lawful and reasoned decision. 13.  Ms Kobilyeva married her husband in 1984. Both the applicant and her husband worked at a rubber-production company. In 2000 the company provided the applicant’s husband with a flat in which all the family resided. In 2002 a flat ownership certificate was issued to the applicant’s husband. 14.  In 2008 the applicant divorced her husband. In 2009 she instituted civil proceedings against her former husband, arguing that the flat was their common marital property and that she was entitled to half of the flat. 15.  On 21 July 2009 the Bila Tserkva Town Court dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated, stating that the flat was the personal property of the former husband and not part of their marital property. The court had regard to the written evidence as well as oral statements of the company director, who had submitted that the company had provided the flat to the applicant’s former husband in order to reward him for his professional achievements. The court referred to Article 57 of the Family Code of 2002, which provided that rewards and awards for personal achievements of one of the spouses were part of his or her individual property and not the marital property of both spouses. 16.  The applicant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the court had wrongly resolved the dispute on the basis of the Family Code of 2002, which had come into effect on 1 January 2004 and which could not apply retrospectively to the property regime in respect of the flat at issue. Under the Marriage and Family Code of 1969, which had been in force when her former husband had acquired the flat, the latter had been the common marital property of the spouses, and no exceptions were made for rewards or awards for personal achievements of one of the spouses. 17.  On 27 October 2009 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded, holding that she had failed to prove that the flat was the marital property of the former spouses and that she had made any contribution to the acquisition of the flat. The applicant then raised those arguments before the Supreme Court. On 16 February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed as unfounded an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. 18.  The applicant’s husband worked at company O. from 1981 until his death on 3 July 2006. 19.  On 20 December 1995 company O., the applicant’s husband and K., a construction company, concluded an agreement under which the applicant’s husband was to be provided with a three-room flat, no. 42, in a multi-storey building. Company O. financed the construction work. As a party to that agreement, the applicant’s husband was obliged to carry out internal repairs in the flat. On 26 July 1996 the administration of company O. and its trade union confirmed that the applicant’s husband and his family, which included two children, were entitled to flat no. 42 in the building which was under construction. 20.  On 22 December 1998 company K., company O. and another company which was participating in the financing of the construction of the building, concluded another agreement specifying once again that the applicant’s husband would be provided with a three-room flat, no. 42. On the same date company O. issued a certificate stating that the applicant’s husband was the successor of company O. under the agreements of 20 December 1995 and 22 December 1998, given that company O. had been declared bankrupt and the construction work had not been completed. 21.  In 2002 company K. made further arrangements and agreements aimed at raising funds for the completion of the building. In 2005 company K. transferred the flat at issue to another individual. 22.  After the death of her husband, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against company O. and company K., seeking to oblige them to provide her with a flat analogous to the one specified in the contracts with her husband. On 12 April 2010 the Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovohrad dismissed the claim, finding that the applicant’s husband “had not been a party” to the agreements of 20 December 1995 and 22 December 1998 and that therefore the defendants could not be held liable for failing to comply with any contractual obligations. As to the alleged succession of rights by the applicant’s husband in accordance with the certificate of 22 December 1998, such allegations had not been based on law. 23.  The applicant appealed, arguing that her husband had been expressly designated as a party to the agreement of December 1995. In any event, under the applicable law, contracts could be concluded for the benefit of a third party and such beneficiary was entitled to seek proper performance of the contract. Furthermore, company O. had assigned its rights to the flat to the applicant’s husband. Lastly, the applicant argued that the rights to the flat had been retained by her husband’s family after his death. 24.  On 21 September 2010 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that the claim against company K. was groundless because it had been just a technical contractor and not a party responsible for the provision and distribution of flats; it had been the responsibility of company O. to provide the applicant’s husband with the flat. However, there was no evidence that company O. still existed as a legal entity or had any successors. Furthermore, the applicant herself had never been a party to the agreements with the defendants. 25.  The applicant then raised those arguments before the Supreme Court. On 19 January 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed as unfounded an appeal on points of law. 26.  The applicant’s grandmother worked in an agricultural collective farm and was entitled to a share in the plots of land allocated to that farm. According to the applicant, his grandmother had died without having actually been provided with the share of land. 27.  The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the local authorities and the collective farm, claiming that, as his grandmother’s successor, he had to be provided with the share of land to which his grandmother had been entitled. He enclosed, among other things, official letters from the domestic authorities confirming to him that his grandmother had had the right to a share of land. 28.  Following the applicant’s request, on 4 March 2010 the Obukhiv District Court ordered the local land resources department to submit to the court the land ownership documents given to the farm, including an official list of citizens who had been given the shares in the plots of land allocated to the farm. As the official list had not been provided, on 30 March 2010 the court requested it once again. Subsequently, the court sent a warning that administrative liability could be imposed for failure to submit the requested list of citizens. 29.  On 25 may 2010 the Obukhiv District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim after finding that he had failed to substantiate it and to prove that his grandmother had not received any share of land. The court stated, in particular, that the applicant had failed to submit the official list of citizens who had been given shares in the plots of land allocated to the farm. The court noted that its attempt to obtain that evidence had not been successful. 30.  The applicant appealed, arguing that (i) the fact that his grandmother had not received the share of land had been confirmed, in his opinion, by the official replies from the local authorities which he had submitted to the court; and (ii) he did not have access to the list of citizens mentioned by first-instance court. 31.  On 4 November 2010 the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the first-instance court’s reasoning that by not providing the official list of citizens who had received the shares of land, the applicant had failed to prove that his grandmother had not received any such share. 32.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that he could not have access to the above-mentioned list and it was for the courts to take measures to obtain the list from the defendants. However, even in the absence of the list, there were official replies from the local authorities confirming, in his opinion, that his grandmother had not been allocated the share of land to which she had been entitled. 33.  On 4 January 2011 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters dismissed the appeal on points of law, noting that the applicant had failed to present the above-mentioned list of citizens in support of his claim.