4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Rostov-on-Don. 5.  The applicant, an army officer at the material time, sued the military unit in which he had served. 6.  On 13 December 2000 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court (hereinafter “the Garrison Court”) granted the applicant’s claims. The court awarded the applicant nine various monetary allowances overdue and pecuniary indemnities, 500 Russian roubles (RUB) of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the military unit to remove from his personal record his character reference made by his superior in February 1998, to provide him with some information on his alimony payments and on whether his name had been put on the list of persons eligible for housing. 7.  This judgment had not been appealed against and became final. 8.  The allowances and indemnities awarded by the judgment of 13 December 2000 were paid to the applicant on 21 December 2000, on 29 August 2001 and the remaining debt in July 2004. 9.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s name was put on the list of persons eligible for housing. 10.  On 11 February 2004 bailiff opened enforcement proceedings. The applicant’s military unit was invited to remove his character reference of February 1998 from his personal record and to provide him with information on the payment of alimony. 11.  On 12 March and 11 June 2004 the Head of the military unit informed the bailiff that the execution of these parts of the judgment of 13 December 2000 was outside of his competence. 12.  On 23 December 2005 the Garrison Court rejected the bailiff’s request for clarification of the judgment of 13 December 2000 as regards the obligation to remove the applicant’s character reference from his personal record. It considered that the bailiff failed to indicate what exactly in the judgment was unclear and to demonstrate the existence of obstacles to the execution of this part of the judgment. The court also indicated a possible way to comply with the judgment by sending a request to the Military Commissariat where the applicant’s personal file was kept. 13.  On 23 December 2009 the Head of the social department of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region confirmed that the applicant’s record did not contain his character reference made in February 1998. It was however impossible to establish when it had been removed from the record. 14.  The authorities’ obligation to provide the applicant with information on the payment of alimony has never been executed. 15.  On 30 September 2004 the Garrison Court adjusted the sums paid to the applicant in July 2004 under the judgment of 13 December 2000 in accordance with the inflation rate and awarded the applicant RUB 1,716.72. 16.  This sum was paid to the applicant in February 2005. 17.  On 5 December 2005 the Garrison Court adjusted the sums paid to the applicant in February 2005 under the judgment of 30 September 2004 in accordance with the inflation rate and awarded him RUB 1,700. 18.  On 1 October 2006 the applicant’s military unit was disbanded and Military Unit 89 UNR became its successor. 19.  On 21 November 2006 the Garrison Court substituted the original defendant in the judgment of 5 December 2005 for Military Unit 89 UNR. 20.  On 23 November 2006 the new writ of execution was sent directly to the Krasnodar Regional Department of the Federal Treasury. 21.  On 12 December 2006 the Krasnodar Regional Department of the Federal Treasury informed the Garrison Court that the new defendant had no bank account. 22.  On 9 January 2007 the Garrison Court named FGUP "Construction Directorate for Northern Caucasus Military District of the Ministry of Defense" as the new defendant under the judgment of 5 December 2005. 23.  On the same day the writ of execution was sent to the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury. 24.  On 11 April 2007 the Garrison Court rectified the name of the new defendant. 25.  On 16 April 2007 the rectified writ of execution was forwarded again to the Federal Treasury. 26.  On 18 October 2007 the judgment of 5 December 2005, as rectified on 21 November 2006, was enforced.