4.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1948, and 1946 respectively and live in Syktyvkar. 5.  On 14 February 2003 the Syktyvkar Town Court granted the applicants’ claim against the local administration for provision of municipal housing and ordered to provide each of them with one room. The court found, inter alia, that one of the walls of the building where the applicants resided was destroyed and the building was at risk of collapse. The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final. 6.  On 19 March 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment in their favour could not be enforced because neither housing nor appropriate budget funds were available. 7.  On 5 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings were opened. 8.  On 16 May 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment could not be enforced because of the lack of housing. 9.  On 17 December 2004 the first applicant was offered a two-room flat. The applicant accepted the offer. 10.  On 25 February 2005 the second and third applicants were offered a two-room flat. The applicants accepted. 11.  On 23 and 24 June 2005 the bailiffs decided to close the enforcement proceedings as the judgement of 14 February 2003 being duly enforced. It appears that the applicants did not appeal.