6.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix each applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in the same recently constructed residential building in Baku (see Table I). 7.  At the same time, the applicants became aware that their respective flats had been occupied by families of internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from different regions under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. 8.  According to the applicants, despite their numerous demands the IDP families refused to vacate the flats, pointing out that they were IDPs and had no other place to live. 9.  On different dates the applicants lodged civil actions with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of these families from their flats. 10.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the Yasamal District Court granted the applicants' claims and ordered that the IDP families be evicted from the flats. In all cases, the court held that the applicants were the sole lawful tenants of the flats on the basis of the occupancy vouchers and therefore the flats were being unlawfully occupied by the IDP families. 11.  No appeals were lodged against the judgments of the Yasamal District Court and, pursuant to the domestic law, they became enforceable upon the expiry of the relevant appeal periods. However the IDP families refused to comply with the judgments and despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced. 12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicants, who were in the same situation, lodged a joint action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments. 13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 12 November 2007, after a series of appeals and quashings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' request and terminated the case noting that there was no need to deliver a separate judgment on enforceability of the judgments. 14.  It appears from the case file that, after the lodging of the present applications with the Court, the defendant IDP families lodged a joint request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgments on their eviction from the applicants' flats. They alleged that, as they were IDPs, they had no other place to live but the flats in question. 15.  After a series of appeals by the applicants and defendants, by a decision of 6 June 2008, the Yasamal District Court declared the defendants' request inadmissible for non-compliance with procedural norms. The court explained that the IDPs should lodge their requests separately. 16.  On different dates, the defendants IDP families lodged separate court actions asking for postponement of the judgments ordering their eviction from the applicants' flats. The proceedings can be summarised as follows:
(a)  As for application no. 50766/07, on 3 July 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 27 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision.
(b)  As for application no. 50786/07, on 26 November 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 9 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision.
(c)  As for application no. 50871/07, on 25 June 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 16 October 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision.
(d)  As for application no. 50913/07, on 27 June 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 29 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision. 17.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicants lodged a joint action against different authorities, seeking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgments delivered in their favour. On 19 December 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants' claims as unsubstantiated. On 3 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 3 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment. 18.  At the time of the latest communications with the applicants, the respective judgments remained unenforced.