5.  The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in St-Petersburg. The second applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  At the material time, the applicants were owners of a house in Chişinău and the land adjacent to it. Their neighbour, T., built an unauthorised house extension on the land belonging to the applicants. 8.  In 1995 the Centru local executive (Pretura sectorului Centru) in Chişinău issued several decisions requiring the demolition of the unauthorised construction. In 1996 it also cancelled T.'s original building authorisation as it had been issued unlawfully. T. initiated court proceedings; the applicants were involved as third parties since their property rights were directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. They enjoyed full procedural rights. 9.  On 10 December 1996 the Centru District Court found in favour of T. and ordered the local authorities to annul their decisions and confirm the lawfulness of the construction. 10.  On 16 May 1997 the Chisinau Regional Court quashed that judgment, rejected T.'s action and upheld the administrative decisions for the demolition of the building. 11.  On 15 January 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 16 May 1997 and upheld the judgment of 10 December 1996. 12.  On 30 September 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General's request for annulment, quashed the judgment of 15 January 1998 and upheld the judgment of 16 May 1997. That judgment was final and enforceable. 13.  On 4 December 1998 the local authority issued a new decision for the demolition of the unauthorised construction. 14.  The applicants subsequently made numerous requests for the enforcement of the final judgment. Each time the local authority replied that the enforcement was not possible, either due to weather conditions, the lack of necessary equipment or the new judicial proceedings initiated by T. 15.  T. made several attempts to reopen the proceedings by using extraordinary means of appeal and claiming that his wife and daughter had not been party to the proceedings. These requests were rejected as inadmissible by court decisions in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006. The enforcement proceedings were twice suspended by court orders pending the outcome of these proceedings: for six months in 2003 and for nine months in 2005. 16.  Following the communication of the present application to the Government, in July 2006 the judgment of 30 September 1998 was enforced.