5.  The applicants are Mr Oleg Yuryevich Kopnin, Mr Yuriy Olegovich Kopnin, Ms Natalya Borisovna Kopnina and Ms Olga Olegovna Kopnina, who were born in 1958, 1986, 1961 and 1983 respectively and live in Stavropol. The first and the third applicants are former husband and wife and the second and the fourth applicants are their children. 6.  The applicants lived in a building which the local authority had declared unsuitable for habitation in 1986. In 2003 the local authority declared that the building was at imminent risk of collapse (грозящий обвалом). 7.  On 13 May 2004 the Stavropol Oktyabrskiy District Court (“the district court”) acknowledged that the applicants’ flat was unsuitable for habitation. Notably, the district court established that the building was in a critical state and that use of the kitchen and corridor in particular presented a risk, as those parts of the building were liable to collapse at any moment. It consequently ordered the Stavropol City Council (“the Council”) to rehouse them within ten days in accommodation from its temporary housing stock (маневренный фонд – “temporary stock”), and subsequently to provide them with suitable housing in compliance with the applicable legislation. The court also awarded them 500 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage on the grounds that living in such conditions had caused the applicants physical and mental distress. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 24 May 2004. 8.  On 17 June 2004 enforcement proceedings were initiated and on 14 July 2004 the applicants were offered to be rehoused in a flat from the Council’s temporary stock. This offer was turned down by them on the grounds that the flat offered was unsuitable for habitation. 9.  Following their refusal, on 27 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated by the bailiffs on account of the impossibility of enforcing the judgment, given that the Council had no other available housing or the financial resources to purchase any. 10.  On an unspecified date the applicants challenged the bailiffs’ inactivity and their decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings. On 2 December 2004 the district court found that the flat offered by the Council was unsuitable for habitation and did not meet the applicable health and safety requirements and building regulations. As a consequence, the district court quashed the decision of 27 September 2004 to terminate the enforcement proceedings. It also found that the Council’s reference to the lack of other available housing in its temporary stock had no legal value and could not justify non-compliance with a final court judgment. 11.  On 25 January 2005 the applicants complained under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Council’s continuing failure to comply with the judgment of 13 May 2004. On the same date the district court dismissed this complaint, on the grounds that it concerned the same parties and subject-matter as the action previously examined on 13 May 2004. The district court consequently indicated that the applicants should have used other remedies, such as compulsory enforcement under the Enforcement Act and Article 315 of the Criminal Code. On 4 March 2005 this decision was upheld by the Regional Court. 12.  In March 2005 the Council offered three applicants, Mr Y. O. Kopnin, Ms N. B. Kopnina and Ms O. O. Kopnina, to move to another flat. They refused this offer on the grounds that the property was not compliant with the housing standards introduced by the new Housing Code which had entered into force on 1 March 2005. 13.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants lodged a new claim with the district court seeking to oblige the Council to provide them with housing under its programme entitled “Rehousing of residents from derelict housing at risk of collapse in the Stavropol region for the period 2004-2005”. On 28 April 2005 the district court rejected the applicants’ claim. On 17 June 2005 this judgment was upheld on appeal by the Stavropol Regional Court. 14.  On 30 May 2005 the applicants lodged another application with the district court. They submitted that the offer made by the Council in March 2005 had been unlawful and asked the court to oblige the Council to provide them with housing that complied with the standards set by the new Housing Code. 15.  On 28 September 2005 the first applicant was provided with social housing in accordance with the new Housing Code. 16.  On 20 December 2005 the district court approved a settlement agreement entered into between the other three applicants and the Council and terminated the proceedings they initiated in relation to the offer made by the Council in March 2005. On 28 December 2005 the three other applicants were provided with social housing in accordance with the new Housing Code. 17.  On 28 March 2006 the sum of RUB 500 awarded in non-pecuniary damage by the judgment of 13 May 2004 was transferred to the first applicant’s bank account.