10.  The first, second and third applicants were born in 1950, 1973 and 1971, respectively, and currently live in Belgrade, Serbia. 11.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 12.  The first applicant, her husband and the other two applicants were holders of a specially protected tenancy concerning a flat in Podgorica (nosioci odnosno korisnici stanarskog prava), Montenegro, where they lived. 13.  In 1989 the first applicant and her husband divorced and the former was granted custody of the other two applicants. 14.  On 26 January 1994 the first applicant obtained a decision from the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u Podgorici) declaring her the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy on the family’s flat. In addition, her former husband (“the respondent”) was ordered to vacate the flat within fifteen days from the date when the decision became final. 15.  On 27 April 1994 the decision of the Court of First Instance was upheld on appeal by the High Court (Viši sud u Podgorici) and thereby became final. 16.  Given that the respondent did not comply with the court order to vacate the flat, on 31 May 1994 the first applicant instituted a formal judicial enforcement procedure before the Court of First Instance. 17.  The enforcement order was issued on the same date. 18.  On 8 July 1994 the bailiffs attempted to evict the respondent together with his new wife and minor children but the eviction was adjourned because he threatened to use force. 19.  On 14 July 1994 they tried again, this time assisted by the police, but apparently the planned eviction was adjourned for the same reason. 20.  On 15 July 1994 the first applicant bought the flat and became its owner. 21.  On 26 October 1994 the bailiffs and the police once again failed to evict the respondent who kept threatening the first applicant in their presence and bore arms on his person. There also appear to have been additional weapons, ammunition and even a bomb in the flat at the time. The police took the respondent to their station but released him shortly afterwards without pressing charges. 22.  On 28 November 1994 and 16 March 1995 another two scheduled evictions failed, the latter due to the “respondent’s request for the provision of social assistance” in respect of his minor children. 23.  On 23 October 1995 the first applicant gifted the flat to the second and third applicants. 24.  On 3 June 1996 and 1 August 1996, respectively, another two scheduled evictions failed. 25.  On 3 June 1998 the Ministry of Justice informed the first applicant that the Court of First Instance had committed to enforce the eviction order before the end of the month. 26.  On 27 October 1998 and 1 November 1999 another two scheduled evictions failed. 27.  In the meantime, on 13 August 1999, the Real Estate Directorate (Direkcija za nekretnine) issued a formal decision recognising the second and the third applicants as the new owners of the flat in question. 28.  In March of 2004 another eviction was attempted but failed. In the presence of police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, bailiffs and the enforcement judge herself, as well as his wife and their children, the respondent threatened to blow up the entire flat. His neighbours also seem to have opposed the eviction, some of them apparently going so far as to physically confront the police. 29.  Throughout the years the first applicant complained to numerous State bodies about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour, but to no avail. 30.  On 9 February 2006 another scheduled enforcement failed because the respondent had threatened to “spill blood” rather than be evicted. 31.  On 5 May 2006 and 31 January 2007, respectively, the enforcement judge sent letters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, seeking assistance. 32.  On 15 February 2007 the enforcement judge was told, at a meeting with the police, that the eviction in question was too dangerous to be carried out, that the respondent could blow up the entire building by means of a remote control device, and that the officers themselves were not equipped to deal with a situation of this sort. The police therefore proposed that the applicants be provided with another flat instead of the one in question. 33.  On 19 November 2007 the enforcement judge urged the Ministry of Justice to secure the kind of police assistance needed for the respondent’s ultimate eviction. 34.  On 26 March 2004 the second applicant, on her own behalf and on behalf of the third applicant, authorised the first applicant to sell the flat in question. 35.  On 30 January 2006 the second and third applicants authorised the first applicant, inter alia, to represent them in the enforcement proceedings. 36.  The applicants maintain that the gift contract of 1995 (see paragraph 23 above) and the said powers of attorney were submitted to the enforcement court. The first applicant was therefore the second and third applicants’ legal representative in the enforcement proceedings.