5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Baku. 6.  By an order of the Azizbeyov District Executive Authority (“ADEA”) of 18 January 1994, the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku. 7.  On the same day, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by S. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Lachin, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh. 8.  According to the applicant, despite his numerous demands, S. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to reside in. 9.  On an unspecified date in 2003, the applicant lodged an action with the Surakhany District Court asking the court to order the eviction of S. and his family from the flat. 10.  On 23 December 2003 the Surakhany District Court granted the applicant's claim and ordered that S. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court noted that S. and his family were IDPs who had illegally settled in the flat in 1993. The court held that, pursuant to the occupancy voucher issued to him by the ADEA on 18 January 1994, the applicant was the lawful tenant of the flat and, as such, had a right to demand S. to vacate it. Moreover, the court noted that, in accordance with the domestic law, IDPs could be allowed to temporarily settle of their own will only if this did not infringe the rights and lawful interests of other persons; otherwise, the local executive authorities had to ensure their resettlement in other accommodation. In the present case, since the applicant's property rights had been infringed, the Surakhany District Executive Authority (“SDEA”) was ordered to provide S. and his family with other accommodation. 11.  No appeals were filed against this judgment and it entered into legal force. However, S. refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant's complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced. 12.  On 22 February 2005 the Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that it was impossible to execute the judgment of 23 December 2003, because the local authorities could not find other accommodation for S. and his family. In such circumstances, the authorities were barred from taking any measures to evict IDPs from their temporary place of residence. 13.  On 24 March 2005 the SDEA informed the applicant that, at that time, there were more than 25,000 IDPs temporarily settled in the Surakhany District. These IDPs lived in various flats, hotels, administrative buildings and other premises. For this reason, there was no more available accommodation in the district in which S. and his family could be resettled. Therefore, it was impossible to execute the judgment of 23 December 2003. 14.  Following the applicant's repeated complaints, on 5 May 2006 the SDEA again informed the applicant that, due to the continuous lack of any other accommodation where S. and his family could be moved, it was impossible to execute the judgment. 15.  At the time of the latest communication with the applicant, the judgment of 23 December 2003 remained unenforced.