4.  The first and the second applicants were born in 1957 and 1962 respectively and live in Yerevan. 5.  The applicants are a husband and wife who had worked for Hrazdanmash Closed Joint-Stock Company (hereafter “Hrazdanmash”), a company involved in manufacturing various machinery and equipment and whose majority shareholder is the State. 6.  No salary was paid to the staff for the years 1998-2000, since Hrazdanmash was experiencing financial problems. In 2000 the majority of Hrazdanmash's staff, including the applicants, were ordered to take unpaid leave for an indefinite period. 7.  It appears that in that period a number of court judgments were adopted against Hrazdanmash, which was ordered to pay tax and other arrears to the State budget, the Pension and Employment Fund and the Armenian Railroad CJSC to a total amount of 589,009,285 drams (AMD). Several sets of enforcement proceedings were instituted. 8.  It further appears that in 2000 Hrazdanmash was restructured into an open joint-stock company, the majority of its shares being retained by the State. 9.  By a decree of 24 April 2000 the Government decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings against Hrazdanmash and other similar companies and to refrain from seizing their property in order to ensure effective management of State property, since the companies in question were engaged in the 1998-2000 privatisation programme of State property. It appears that this decree was repealed on 28 December 2000 and the enforcement proceedings were resumed. 10.  On 17 May 2001 the relevant trade union instituted court proceedings against Hrazdanmash in the interests of the staff, seeking arrears for unpaid salary and other benefits. 11.  On 2 July 2001 the Kotayk Regional Court (Կոտայքի մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) granted the claim and ordered Hrazdanmash to pay a total of AMD 58,060,925, including AMD 211,864.51 and AMD 221,157.08 to the first and the second applicant respectively. 12.  No appeal was lodged against this judgment which became final. 13.  On 23 July 2001 the Kotayk Regional Division of the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (ԴԱՀԿ ծառայության Կոտայքի մարզային ստորաբաժանում – “the DEJA”) instituted enforcement proceedings no. 738. In the course of these proceedings the bailiff decided to freeze Hrazdanmash's property and bank accounts. 14.  On 27 August 2001 the Government adopted decree no. 775, outlining the actions to be taken in order to streamline the privatisation process of companies having strategic importance, to foster investments in such companies and to expand and develop production. Hrazdanmash was listed among the companies in question. 15.  On 10 September 2001 the tax authorities instituted proceedings in the Kotayk Regional Court against Hrazdanmash, seeking to declare it bankrupt and to levy AMD 358,154,700. 16.  By a letter of 11 September 2001 the Regional Court asked the executive director of Hrazdanmash to submit observations in reply. 17.  By a letter of September 2001 (exact date unclear) the First Deputy to the Minister of Industry and Trade replied to the Regional Court's letter, stating that Hrazdanmash was undergoing restructuring on the basis of a governmental decree and that the Ministry of Industry and Trade had applied to the Ministry of State Revenue with a request to suspend the bankruptcy procedure until the restructuring was finalised. 18.  On 13 September 2001 the DEJA decided to stay enforcement proceedings no. 738 on the ground that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted in respect of Hrazdanmash. It appears, however, that the enforcement proceedings were resumed on 19 October 2001 and that part of Hrazdanmash's frozen property was sold at a public auction, as a result of which the first and the second applicant were paid AMD 16,949 and AMD 17,693 respectively. 19.  On 12 November 2001 the bankruptcy proceedings were taken over by the Commercial Court (ՀՀ տնտեսական դատարան). 20.  On 28 January 2001 the tax authorities withdrew the bankruptcy claim on the basis of the Government decree of 27 August 2001. 21.  On 4 February 2002 the Commercial Court terminated the bankruptcy proceedings on this ground. 22.  On 22 February 2002 the DEJA once again decided to stay enforcement proceedings no. 738. 23.  On 24 October 2002 the Government adopted decree no. 1682-A, outlining the actions to be taken in order to prepare Hrazdanmash for privatisation, as required by Government decree no. 775 of 27 August 2001. The Minister of Trade and Economic Development was ordered to take the polyclinic building belonging to Hrazdanmash and transfer it, as State property, to the Kotayk Regional Administration. The Minister was further ordered to clarify the extent of property belonging to Hrazdanmash subject to sale and to come up with benchmark data necessary for valuation of the property in question. The Minister of Management of State Property was ordered, within two months after receiving this data, to ensure the valuation of Hrazdanmash's property, to carry out negotiations with potential buyers and to come up with proposals to the Government. 24.  On 23 January 2003 the DEJA decided to resume enforcement proceedings no. 738. 25.  On 27 March 2003 the Government, with reference to its decree no. 1682-A of 24 October 2002, adopted decree no. 329-A, on the basis of which Hrazdanmash was allowed to sell its property. The property in question included the inventory contained in the company's numerous buildings, while the identified buyers included various private companies. The property was valued at a total of AMD 556,271,000 and was to be sold at roughly 30% of its price. The proceeds of the sale were to be directed by the company towards paying off its debts in respect of the State budget. The buyer companies in return undertook an obligation to the State to make investments of various amounts, including creation of jobs. The Minister of Management of State Property was to monitor the implementation of these sales agreements. 26.  On 7 July 2003 the DEJA stayed the enforcement proceedings on the basis of this decree. 27.  On 23 July 2003 the Government adopted decree no. 955-A, according to which it decided to sell its shares in Hrazdamash to a private company. The shares were valued at AMD 531,616,000 and were to be sold at roughly 17% of their price. The buyer in return undertook an obligation towards the State to make investments in various amounts, including creation of jobs. 28.  In October 2003 the first applicant complained to the President of Armenia about the non-enforcement of the judgment. It appears that this complaint was forwarded to the DEJA. 29.  On 5 January 2004 the applicants contested the decision of 7 July 2003 before the Kotayk Regional Court. In the proceedings before the Regional Court, the representative of the DEJA submitted, inter alia, that the DEJA was not allowed to use the proceeds resulting from the sale of Hrazdanmash's property towards the enforcement of the judgment since they were to be directed to the State budget in accordance with Government decree no. 329-A. He further submitted that the enforcement proceedings remained stayed on the basis of Government decree no. 955-A. 30.  On 29 January 2004 the Kotayk Regional Court dismissed the applicants' claim. In doing so, the Regional Court found:
“... the enforcement proceedings were stayed by the Kotayk Regional Division of the DEJA on the basis of Government decree no. 329-A of 27 March 2003. According to Section 38 of the Law on the Enforcement of Judicial Acts [(hereafter, the Law)] the bailiff has the right to stay the enforcement proceedings if the debtor is engaged in the fulfilment of any State assignment. Therefore, the actions of the DEJA are lawful and well-grounded.” 31.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal. 32.  On 6 April 2004 the Civil Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) dismissed their appeal, confirming the findings of the Regional Court. The Court of Appeal added that, following the sale of Hrazdanmash's property, the proceeds were directed to the State budget and the bailiff was not allowed to use that money for the purpose of the enforcement proceedings. The Court of Appeal further stated that on 23 July 2003 the Government, by its decree no. 955-A, decided to privatise Hrazdanmash's stock. This decree, however, had not been materialised and therefore no funds had been raised to pay the salaries and to resume the enforcement proceedings. 33.  On 8 April 2004 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They argued, inter alia, that the reference to Section 38 of the Law in the court judgments had been unlawful since Government decree no. 329-A did not say anything about Hrazdanmash being engaged in the fulfilment of any State assignment. 34.  On 14 May 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, stating that the findings of the Court of Appeal had been correct. 35.  On 25 October 2006 the General Prosecutor's Office addressed a letter to the DEJA, stating that Hrazdanmash owed money to the State and that Government decree no. 329-A provided no legal basis for staying the enforcement proceedings instituted in respect of the company. 36.  On 9 November 2006 the DEJA decided to resume the enforcement proceedings, including enforcement proceedings no. 738, with reference to the letter of the General Prosecutor's Office. It appears that following this decision some further property and amounts were seized from Hrazdanmash. No further amounts, however, were paid to the applicants. It appears that enforcement proceedings no. 738 are still pending.