8.  The applicants are Moldovan nationals born in 1969, 1972 and 1965 respectively. They all live in Chişinău. 9.  The applicants were employees of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (“the Academy”), the State’s highest scientific institution. They lived in separate rooms in a dormitory. The rooms had been allocated to them during their doctorate studies with the Academy between 1990 and 1997. 10.  Following a Chişinău Local Council decision of 16 May 1996, by which the legal status of the building was changed from a dormitory to an apartment building, the Academy refused to issue occupancy vouchers in respect of the applicants’ apartments and to sign tenancy agreements with them. 11.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicants brought an action against the Academy, seeking the creation of legal tenancies in their favour (see §§ 23 and 24 below). Notwithstanding the initiation of proceedings against the Academy and the fact that it had refused to sign tenancy agreements with the applicants, they continued to live in their flats, although Mr Aurel Lozan was periodically on mission abroad between 2001 and 2003. 12.  By a judgment of 4 November 1999 the Centru District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the Academy to grant them legal tenancies. The Academy appealed. 13.  On 31 January 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the Academy’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 4 November 1999 and dismissed the applicants’ action. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Appeal. 14.  By a final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 6 June 2000 the applicants’ appeal on points of law was dismissed. 15.  Following a request from the applicants, on 18 August 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of 31 January 2000 and 6 June 2000. 16.  By a final judgment of 25 October 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment, quashed the judgments of the Chişinău Regional Court and of the Court of Appeal and upheld the judgment of the Centru District Court of 4 November 1999, ordering the Academy to grant the applicants legal tenancies. This would have permitted the applicants to sub-let their flats. 17.  Following a request from the Academy, on an unspecified date in 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of its judgment of 25 October 2000. 18.  On 25 June 2001 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment. 19.  On 4 January and 20 February 2001 the applicants requested the Bailiff to enforce the judgment of 4 November 1999 and to oblige the Academy to grant the applicants legal tenancies. 20.  On 5 December 2001 the Bailiff made an official report about the failure of the Academy to comply with the judgment of 4 November 1999. 21.  On 4 December 2003, after the present application had been communicated to the Government, the Academy complied with the judgment of 4 November 1999 and issued the applicants with occupancy vouchers in respect of their flats. The applicants sent written declarations to the Government’s Agent, confirming that the judgment of 4 November 1999 had been enforced and that they did not have any pecuniary and non-pecuniary claims against the Academy.