6.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix each applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in the same recently constructed residential building in Baku (see Table I). 7.  At the same time, the applicants became aware of the fact that their respective flats had been occupied by families of internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from different regions under the occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh. 8.  According to the applicants, despite their numerous demands, the IDP families refused to vacate the flats, pointing out that they were IDPs and had no other place to live. 9.  On different dates the applicants lodged civil actions with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of these families from their flats. 10.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the Yasamal District Court granted the applicants' claims and ordered that the IDP families be evicted from the flats. In all cases, the court held that the applicants were the sole lawful tenants of the flats on the basis of the occupancy vouchers and therefore the flats were being unlawfully occupied by the IDP families. 11.  No appeals were lodged against the judgments of the Yasamal District Court and pursuant to the domestic law, they became enforceable upon the expiry of the relevant appeal periods. However the IDP families refused to comply with the judgments and despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, they were not enforced. 12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicants, who were in the same situation, lodged a joint action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments. 13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 12 November 2007, after a series of appeals and quashings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' request and terminated the case noting that there was no need to deliver a separate judgment on enforceability of the judgments. 14.  It appears from the case file that after the lodging of the present applications with the Court, the defendant IDP families lodged several requests with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgments on their eviction from the applicants' flats. They alleged that, as they were IDPs, they had no other place to live but the flats in question. At the time of the latest communications with the applicants, it appears that after a series of appeals and quashings, none of the IDPs' requests for postponement were upheld. These proceedings can be summarised as follows. 15.  On 6 June 2008 the Yasamal District Court declared the defendants' joint postponement request inadmissible for non-compliance with procedural norms. The court explained that the IDPs should lodge their requests separately. 16.  Such separate requests were lodged by the IDP families concerned only by two applications (nos. 50848/07 and 50894/07):
(a)  As for the IDPs concerned by application no. 50848/07, on 10 November 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 19 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision. On 23 February 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the postponement decision and returned the case for review to the Baku Court of Appeal.
(b)  As for the IDPs concerned by application no. 50894/07, on 2 July 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 21 August 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the postponement decision. On 20 October 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the quashing. 17.  In the case of Ms Sadagat Ahmadova, on 12 April 2007, the Yasamal District Court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher and that the IDP family occupied the flat unlawfully. However taking into account the fact that the defendant IDP family could not return to their permanent place of residence in Lachin and, in the meantime had no other place to reside, the court held that the execution of its judgment should be postponed until they could return to Lachin or be provided with another place of residence. The applicant appealed against this judgment claiming misinterpretation of the relevant law. On 6 November 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal delivered a new judgment quashing the first-instance court's judgment in the part concerning the postponement of the judgment's execution. The Baku Court of Appeal reaffirmed the order on the eviction of the defendant IDP family from the flat. No appeals were filed against this judgment and it became enforceable. 18.  On an unspecified date in 2008, all the applicants lodged a joint action against different authorities seeking compensation for non‑enforcement of the judgments delivered in their favour. On 19 December 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants' claims as unsubstantiated. On 3 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 3 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment. 19.  At the time of the latest communications with the applicants, the respective judgments remained unenforced.