5.  The circumstances of the present case are similar to those in the case Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia (nos. 11093/07 et seq., §§ 6-13, 7 July 2009). 6.  The applicants' names and other details are indicated in the appended table. 7.  The applicants emigrated to Israel from the USSR in the 1980s and 1990s and obtained Israeli nationality. Before immigration they had been receiving old-age pensions from the Soviet authorities. However, once the applicants left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law applicable at the material time. As they left the USSR prior to its collapse, they were not entitled to a pension under the new Russian legislation. 8.  In early 2000 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to the regional departments of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (“the Pension Fund”) for the payment of their pensions to be restored. On unspecified dates they brought civil proceedings against the Pension Fund requesting restoration of the payment of their pensions. 9.  By the final judgments listed in the appended table the applicants' claims were allowed and the Pension Fund was ordered to restore pension payments. 10.  In the case of Ms Eydelman the final judgment of 5 July 2004 was being enforced from April 2005 until July 2006, when it was quashed. 11.  In the case of Ms Margulis the applicant submitted to a State body responsible for enforcement, the required additional documents, including her bank account, by 30 June 2005. The final judgment in her favour in part of the periodical payments due in 1998-2005 was subsequently enforced on 20 January 2006. The judgment has not been enforced since then. 12.  In the cases of Ms Shinkova and Ms Rogatskaya the judgments have never been enforced. 13.  In the cases of Ms Itskovich and Ms Orlova the payments were restored and were stopped only after the subsequent quashing of the judgments in their favour. 14.  In the case of Ms Lyalina the payments under the judgment were made in part. 15.  In the cases of Ms Rozhnikovskaya and Ms Mnushkina the monthly payments were made in full until January 2008, that is one month before the judgment was quashed by way of supervisory review. 16.  In the cases of Ms Soltanova and Ms Litvinova the payments were not made due to the applicants' alleged failure to provide the necessary documents. 17.  In the case of Ms Vcherashnyaya the judgment in her favour was being enforced in full before the quashing via supervisory review. 18.  Subsequently, earlier than 7 January 2008, the Pension Fund, as a party to the proceedings in the present case, lodged requests with the competent regional courts for supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants' favour. The Presidia of the regional courts granted the requests, quashed the judgments and dismissed the applicants' claims. 19.  The Presidia found that according to the relevant USSR legislation, under which the pensions had been awarded, there was no possibility to continue the payments to the applicants, as they had left the country. They considered that the payments were to be restored only if the pensions had been awarded in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, not the USSR. The Presidia accordingly concluded that there was no basis under the domestic law for the payments to be awarded to the applicants. 20.  The relevant data on the Presidia decisions is listed below.