6.  The applicants were born in 1964, 1949, 1965, 1959, 1952, 1937, 1951 and 1930 respectively and live in Floreşti. 7.  In 2004 the applicants asked the Floreşti Regional Council (“the Regional Council”) to issue them with confirmation of the existence, in Floreşti, of a religious denomination of the Christian Orthodox Church (“the Church”), subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. 8.  On an unknown date the Regional Council rejected the request, finding that another religious denomination of the Church, subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, had already been registered in Floreşti since 1999. Moreover, there was an ongoing conflict between the two denominations and civil proceedings were in progress to determine which of them had the right to own certain church property. 9.  The applicants initiated court proceedings, seeking a court order for the Regional Council to issue them with the relevant document, which was necessary for the official registration of the applicants’ church as a legal person. 10.  On 24 December 2004 the Bălţi District Court rejected the application as unfounded. 11.  On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and delivered a new one, finding in the applicants’ favour. It ordered the Regional Council to issue the relevant confirmation to the applicants. The court relied expressly on Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention in reaching its decision. 12.  On 20 May 2005 the applicants asked the Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice to take action in order to enforce the final judgment in their favour. 13.  On 25 November 2005 they formally submitted an enforcement warrant to the Floreşti Enforcement Office. That office accepted it on the same day. 14.  On 1 December 2005 the enforcement authorities invited the Regional Council to abide by the judgment. On 23 December 2005 the Regional Council replied that it was “not opportune” to enforce the judgment at the time, given the ongoing conflict and legal proceedings. Enforcement had thus been postponed pending the outcome of the civil proceedings concerning the church property. 15.  On 17 February 2006 an enforcement officer asked the court to clarify the manner of enforcing the judgment. By April 2006 the court had not yet examined that request. 16.  On 17 March 2006 the Floreşti Enforcement Office repeatedly asked the Regional Council to enforce the judgment. Since the Regional Council again refused to comply, the enforcement officer asked the court to penalise its members. It is unknown whether penalties were applied. 17.  Various complaints to the prosecuting authorities also remained unanswered. 18.  On an unknown date in 2006 one of the applicants (Mr Petru Botezat) initiated civil court proceedings against the State Service for Religious Denominations, asking for the registration of the religious denomination which he represented. On 20 April 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the claim as unfounded. The court found that Mr Botezat had asked for the registration of a denomination with the same name and address as one already registered with the authorities, which was contrary to legal requirements. Moreover, the court noted the absence from the documents submitted by Mr Botezat of the confirmation by the Floreşti Regional Council of the existence of the religious denomination in question. 19.  On 11 May 2007 the Moldovan Parliament adopted the Religious Denominations Act which eliminated, inter alia, the requirement of confirmation by the local authorities of the existence of religious denominations before they could be registered by the State authorities. The law came into force on 17 August 2007. 20.  On 5 September 2007 the enforcement office returned the enforcement warrant to the applicants, noting that in view of the legislative amendments enforcement was no longer necessary. The applicants did not challenge that decision in court.