5.  The applicants, Ms Safa Grišević (“the first applicant”), Mr Dragoš Vranić (“the second applicant”) and Ms Mladomirka Vučićević (“the third applicant”) are all Serbian citizens who were born in 1962, 1954 and 1965, respectively, and currently live in the Municipality of Novi Pazar, Serbia. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 1 February 1995 the first applicant employed with Raška Holding AD, on 1 January 1998 the second applicant employed with Raška Holding AD – Tkačnica DOO, and on 17 November 1995 the third applicant employed with DP Savremena Konfekcija Raška, were all placed by their respective socially-owned employers on compulsory paid leave until such time when normal production could be resumed and the said companies’ business performance had improved sufficiently. 8.  Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions. 9.   Since the companies failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”). 10.  On 30 March 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the “paid leave benefits” (“naknadu za vreme plaćenog odsustva”) due from 1 February 1995 to 19 January 2004, amounting to 80% of the salary which she would otherwise have earned, plus statutory interest;
ii. 7,800.00 Dinars [RSD] (approximately 99 euros [EUR]) for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension and disability insurance contributions (“doprinose za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje”) due for that period. 11.  By 20 April 2004 this judgment became final. 12.  On 14 May 2004 the applicant requested the Municipal Court to enforce the said judgment and proposed that this be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer, for which purpose she produced her employer’s relevant bank details, or through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable and/or immovable assets. 13.  On 10 June 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and ordered the enforcement sought. 14.   Thereafter, the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank (Narodna banka Srbije). 15.  On 1 December 2005 the applicant filed a written submission with the Municipal Court, stating, inter alia, that:
i. the debtor had, in the meantime, publicly leased out its real estate to third parties and must have thereby obtained sufficient funds for the purposes of enforcement; and
ii. it was unclear whether these funds were being paid to the debtor in cash or through a bank account transfer, which is why the enforcement at issue should instead be attempted through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable and specified immovable property. 16.  On 17 November 2006 the Central Bank informed the Municipal Court that certain information was missing. 17.  On 24 November 2006 the Municipal Court requested the applicant to complete the information. 18.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant provided the Municipal Court with the information sought and on 6 December 2006 the latter adopted a new enforcement order. 19.  On 14 December 2006 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank. 20.  It would appear that the enforcement proceedings are still pending. 21.  On 10 March 2004 the Municipal Court in Novi Pazar ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer to pay him:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 March 1998 to 31 May 2001 (RSD 9,410 in all; approximately EUR 119), indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations, as well as the same benefits due from 1 June 2001 to 10 March 2004 (RSD 133,059 in all; approximately EUR 1,683), together with statutory interest;
ii. RSD 7,800 (approximately EUR 99) for his legal costs; and
iii. the pension and disability insurance contributions (“doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje”) due from 1 January 1999 to 10 March 2004. 22.  By 29 March 2004 this judgment became final. 23.  On 30 March 2004 the applicant filed a request for its enforcement, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets. 24.  On 15 April 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 25.  On 26 April 2004 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank. 26.  On 20 October 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer to pay him:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 11 March 2004 to 20 October 2004, together with statutory interest; and
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due for that period. 27.  By 15 November 2004 this judgment became final. 28.  On 18 November 2004 the applicant filed a request for its enforcement, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets. 29.  On 26 November 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 30.  On 13 December 2004 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank. 31.  On 4 November 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer to pay him RSD 7,800 (approximately EUR 99) for the legal costs incurred in the above proceedings. 32.  By 10 November 2005 this decision became final. 33.  On 28 November 2005 the applicant filed a request for its enforcement, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets. 34.  On 27 December 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 35.  On 7 March 2006 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank. 36.  On 24 August 2005 the applicant filed another labour-related civil claim with the Municipal Court. 37.  On 30 December 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in his favour and ordered his employer to pay him:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 20 October 2004 to 30 December 2005, together with statutory interest;
ii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the same period; and
iii. RSD 4,500 (approximately EUR 53) for his legal costs. 38.  By 27 September 2006 this judgment became final. 39.  It would appear that the applicant has not filed a request for the enforcement of the above decision. 40.  On 14 September 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 16 September 2000 to 16 September 2003, together with statutory interest;
ii. RSD 8,100 (approximately EUR 102 EUR) for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due from 1 August 1998 to 16 September 2003. 41.  By 7 October 2004 this judgment became final. 42.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant filed a request for its enforcement, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets. 43.  On 29 October 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 44.  On 2 November 2004 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank. 45.  On 24 November 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 17 September 2003 to 31 May 2004 (RSD 41,422.25 in all; approximately EUR 524), together with statutory interest;
ii. RSD 7,800 (approximately EUR 99) for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due for that period. 46.  By 6 January 2005 this judgment became final. 47.  On 11 January 2005 the applicant filed a request for its enforcement, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets. 48.  On 8 February 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 49.  On 12 February 2005 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank, but on an unspecified date the latter informed the former that certain information needed for the enforcement was missing. 50.  Following the applicant’s request of 30 June 2006, on 5 July 2006 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings as regards the enforcement of the pension and disability insurance contributions only. 51.  On 15 December 2006 the applicant was declared redundant. 52.  On the same date she signed an agreement with the debtor concerning her salary arrears with interest, as well as her other labour-related benefits and/or contributions. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the applicant shall be paid a certain amount in accordance with the Government’s “social programme”, in return for which the applicant would renounce her right to seek judicial enforcement of any final judgments rendered in her favour before 15 December 2006. 53.  It would appear that the applicant received payment. 54.  Relying on the debtor’s request of 5 May 2005 and the above-mentioned agreement, on 6 May 2008 and 7 May 2008, respectively, the Municipal Court terminated the enforcement ordered on 29 October 2004 and 8 February 2005, respectively. 55.  The District Court upheld these decisions on 4 July and 21 July 2008, respectively. 56.  On 30 November 2004 and 21 February 2005, the applicants’ lawyer sent two separate letters to the Ministry of Finance, stating, inter alia, that the companies at issue:
i. have, for the past ten years, deliberately avoided doing business through their official bank accounts;
ii. have instead, apparently, engaged in cash transactions or even the use of other “secret” bank accounts, unknown to the tax authorities; and
iii. that, as a result of this, judicial enforcement by means of a bank transfer has been rendered impossible. 57.  Finally, the applicants’ lawyer requested that urgent action be taken to secure the enforcement of the final judgments in question. 58.  On 21 March 2005 the Ministry of Finance responded that the representative’s letters had been duly considered but, in view of the confidential nature of the information obtained, no details could be disclosed. 59.  On 6 June 2005 the applicants’ lawyer sent another complaint to the Ministry of Finance, stating that the situation concerning the bank accounts in question had remained unchanged. 60.  On 2 November 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the first and second applicants’ employers, as part of the privatisation process. On 13 December 2006 privatisation was stayed, but on 14 March 2007 it was resumed. 61.  As of April 2009, the first and second applicants’ debtors were still predominantly socially-owned, whilst the third applicant’s debtor, having been privatised, was predominantly comprised of private capital.