5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Lankaran. 6.  The applicant owned a house of 315 m² built on a land plot of 615 m². She was delivered a land registration certificate on 18 January 1991. 7.  J.E. had owned a land plot of 346 m² adjacent to the applicant’s land plot. J.E. died in 1957. However on 23 September 1992 the Lankaran Land Commission (“the Commission”) registered an additional land plot in the name of late J.E. and the Lankaran Inventory Office (the local office of the State Service for Registration of Real Property) documented the total area of J.E.’s land plot as 938 m², which included a part of the land plot actually belonging to the applicant. The reasons for such registration in the name of the deceased person are not clear from the case file. 8.  The applicant lodged a court action asking the court to declare the Commission’s decision of 23 September 1992 unlawful and to annul all further registration operations in the part concerning her land plot. On 11 March 1993 the Lankaran District Court upheld the applicant’s request and annulled the Commission’s decision of 23 September 1992 and the subsequent registrations by the Lankaran Inventory Office. Pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, the judgment became enforceable ten days after its delivery. 9.  Nevertheless, on 17 May 1993 the size of late J.E.’s land plot as inherited by his son I.E. was re-registered in I.E.’s name with the total area of 938 m². I.E. was delivered a land certificate for 938 m² of land. In 1993, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure in force at the material time, the Lankaran Prosecutor’s Office intervened in the applicant’s favour and lodged a court action against Lankaran Inventory Office and I.E., asking the court to annul the erroneous records of the Lankaran Inventory Office and the land certificate delivered to I.E. The applicant participated in the proceedings as a co-plaintiff. On 21 January 1999 the Masalli District Court upheld the request. The court ordered that the Commission’s decision of 23 September 1992 and the subsequent registrations by the Lankaran Inventory Office be annulled. Pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, the judgment became enforceable ten days after its delivery. However, despite the applicant’s complaints to various authorities, the judgment in question was not executed for a lengthy period of time by the Lankaran Inventory Office, which had to make the relevant modifications in its records concerning the size of applicant’s and I.E.’s land plots. According to the applicant, owing to the domestic authorities failure to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in question, a part of her land plot had been used by her neighbour during that time. She could not prevent her neighbour from doing so, as the official document determining the size of her land plot was erroneous and in spite of the courts’ judgment, the domestic authorities failed to correct the mentioned errors in official records. 10.  After the communication of the application to the respondent Government, on 20 August 2010 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced and relevant modifications were made in the Lankaran Inventory Office’s records.