5.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1985 respectively and live in the town of Anapa, Krasnodar Region. The applicants are mother and son. 6.  In 1989 the first applicant started working in a State-owned seaside health resort in Anapa. A year later the resort’s management allowed the applicants to occupy two rooms in a former administrative building. By a decision of the resort’s trade union committee of 24 October 1991, the first applicant was officially assigned housing rights to those premises. A year later a State body supervising the resort decided to assign the status of a dormitory to the administrative building in which the first applicant and her son lived. However, the proceedings by which the status of the administrative building was to be changed were not completed. At the same time, pursuant to a decision of the Head of the Anapa City Council the applicants and other inhabitants of the dormitory registered, on a permanent basis, their housing rights to the premises they occupied in the dormitory building. 7.  In 2001 a new director of the resort, which by that time had been transformed into a private joint-stock company, “Golden Beach Resort” (hereinafter – “the Company”), lodged an action against the applicants seeking their eviction. 8.  On 21 November 2001 the Anapa Town Court dismissed the action, having found that the applicants had been lawfully provided with the premises, which they had established as their place of permanent residence. The first applicant had duly paid the rent and, with the consent of the resort’s management, had improved the state of the premises by installing a sewage system and carrying out renovation works. The Town Court noted that “it was impossible to evict the applicants without providing them with other housing premises” and held that the Company was, at its next general meeting of shareholders, to determine the issue of purchasing a flat for the applicants in accordance with the requirements of the Russian Housing Code in order to resettle them from the premises they had occupied in the resort. 9.  That decision was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 5 February 2002. 10.  On 2 April 2002 the Anapa Town Court issued a writ of execution which the first applicant submitted to a bailiff on the following day. 11.  In 2004 the first applicant, disappointed by the bailiff’s failure to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2001, asked the Anapa Town Court to amend the method of enforcement of the judgment by ordering the Company to pay her a sum equal to the cost of a two-room flat. 12.  On 5 November 2004 the Town Court accepted the action, having noted the Company’s “persistent unwillingness” to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2001 despite the applicants’ countless complaints to various law-enforcement bodies and courts. It ordered that the Company purchase for the applicants, before 1 January 2005, a two-room flat in the town of Anapa. In the event of its failure to comply with the judgment, the Company was to pay the applicants 1,168,800 Russian roubles, equivalent to the cost of a two-room flat. That decision became final on 14 December 2004, having been upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court. 13.  Enforcement proceedings, initiated in January 2005 and pending without any apparent success, were stayed on 13 May 2005 after the acting President of the Krasnodar Regional Court had initiated supervisory review of the decisions of 5 November and 14 December 2004. 14.  On 9 June 2005 the Presidium of the Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination by the Town Court. 15.  On 28 July 2005 the Town Court discontinued the proceedings following the first applicant’s failure to attend two hearings. No appeal being lodged, the decision became final on 8 August 2005. 16.  In 2006 the Anapa Town Bailiffs Service reinitiated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 21 November 2001. In December 2006 the applicants again resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs, having reminded them of their right to have the judgment of 21 November 2001 enforced. 17.  According to the Government, on 9 October 2009 the head of the Anapa Town Bailiffs Service applied to the Town Court, asking it to issue a duplicate of the writ as the Service had lost it. That request was dismissed by the Town Court on 27 October 2009. A similar request by the Service was, however, accepted on 17 May 2010. Three days later the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings because, by a decision of the Commercial Court of the Krasnodar Region, the Company had been declared bankrupt on 11 March 2009 and liquidation proceedings had been initiated. The bailiffs sent the duplicate of the writ to the Company’s liquidator for execution. At the same time, they applied to the Town Court asking it to uphold their decision to close the enforcement proceedings. On 25 June 2010 the Town Court dismissed the motion, having found that the bailiffs had failed to transfer the entire enforcement case file to the Company’s liquidator and had not fulfilled a number of other legal obligations. 18.  The first applicant lodged an action against the Anapa Town Bailiffs Service, complaining that the bailiffs had failed to enforce the final judgment of 21 November 2001. In particular, the first applicant argued that the Company had been an active legal entity, that its shareholders had regularly convened meetings since 2001, that the issue of compliance with the judgment of 21 November 2001 had never been raised at those meetings and that the bailiffs had not taken any steps to enforce the judgment. Furthermore, the first applicant claimed that due to the fact that the bailiffs had lost the writ of execution, had failed to promptly ask the Town Court for a duplicate and had therefore failed to submit the writ to the Company’s liquidator in due time, she and her son had not been included on the list of the Company’s creditors and their claims against the Company had never been considered in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. 19.  On 26 August 2010 the Town Court, having found that the first applicant’s arguments were well-founded, accepted her complaint and declared the bailiffs’ inactivity to be unlawful. Having been upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court, that decision became final on 7 October 2010. 20.  In response to a number of complaints by the applicants about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2001, the Anapa Town Prosecutor’s office conducted an inquiry. In September 2010 the applicants received several letters from the prosecutor’s office, by which they were notified about the results of the inquiry. The prosecutors found that the bailiffs had acted unlawfully, having lost the applicants’ case file in 2008 and having failed to enforce the judgment despite the fact that the first applicant had herself helped to restore the enforcement file. 21.  On 4 May 2011 the Commercial Court of the Krasnodar Region found that the applicants had missed the time-limit for having their claims against the Company included on the list of creditors. At the same time, the court held that they maintained the right to have the judgment of 21 November 2001 enforced from the Company’s funds should any be left after the Company had satisfied all claims of its creditors. 22.  According to the applicants, in the meantime, in June 2005 title to the resort’s immovable property, including the former administrative building in which they lived, was transferred by a court order sought by a Mr K. to the Krasnodar Regional Association of Trade Unions (hereinafter – “the Association”). Two months later the Association sold the resort to Mr K. The sale and purchase agreement contained a clause no. 1.1, by virtue of which Mr K. was to “independently and at his own expense guarantee the housing rights of individuals who lived or were registered as living in the resort”. Mr K.’s title to the resort was endorsed by a decision of the Town Court issued on 27 October 2005. On the following day, complying with the court’s decision, the State authorities registered Mr K.’s title. On 17 April 2006 the resort property was sold by Mr K. to Mr S., the chauffeur of the resort’s director. Three months later Mr S. sold the resort to Ms A., the wife of a deputy director of the resort. 23.  On 11 March 2009 the Company was declared bankrupt and liquidation proceedings were initiated. 24.  In July 2009 Ms A. lodged an action with the Anapa Town Court, seeking annulment of the applicants’ registration in the housing premises and their eviction. The applicants lodged a counterclaim, asking the court to declare the sale and purchase agreements in respect of the resort property null and void and to uphold their right to live in the housing premises. They enclosed written witness statements, including one by a supervising police officer confirming that the applicants, having no other place of residence, were living permanently in the disputed housing premises and had been registered there. The applicants also provided the Town Court with a copy of the judgments of 21 November 2001 and 5 February 2002, arguing that their right to the housing premises had been upheld by the courts and that their eviction would run counter to those judgments and applicable law. 25.  On 25 January 2010 the Town Court accepted the action by Ms A. and dismissed the counterclaim lodged by the applicants. Having held that the applicants’ registration as resident in the premises should be annulled and that they should move out, the Town Court reasoned that, despite the findings made in the judgment of 21 November 2001, as upheld on appeal on 5 February 2002, the applicants had no right to occupy the premises, which had never been declared to be suitable for habitation. The applicants’ registration in those premises had been effected when the building had been transformed into a dormitory. The registration had become unlawful and should have been annulled after the building had ceased to be a dormitory. The Town Court noted that although the applicants had been living in the disputed premises for a long time and were using the premises as their own, irrespective of who the real owner of the building at the time was, that was no ground on which to uphold their right to those premises. 26.  The Town Court had heard the case in the applicants’ absence, as they had refused to accept court summonses to the hearings. Bailiffs’ attempts to serve the applicants with the summonses at their residence had been to no avail, as the applicants had refused to open the door. After all attempts to reach the applicants had proved to be futile, the Town Court had appointed legal aid counsel to represent the applicants. The lawyer, who had attended the court hearings, had made submissions in support of the applicants’ counterclaim. 27.  On 20 May 2010 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 25 January 2010, fully endorsing the Town Court’s reasoning. Having addressed an argument raised by the applicants concerning their absence from the hearings before the Town Court, the Regional Court noted that there was extensive evidence in the case file showing that the Town Court had taken all possible steps to summon the applicants to the hearings. However, they had refused to receive summonses or had gone into hiding so that summonses would not be served on them. The Town Court had ensured the applicants’ interests in the proceedings through legal representation which had not been alleged to be ineffective. Both the first applicant and the applicants’ legal representative attended the appeal hearing. 28.  In August 2010 the applicants complained to the Anapa Town Court about the bailiffs’ actions pertaining to the enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2010. In particular, they claimed that early in the morning on 11 August 2010, without notifying them of the date and time of the visit, bailiffs had entered the housing premises, had taken all their personal belongings out to the street and had installed a new metal door precluding the applicants from entering the building. On 13 August 2010 the bailiffs had annulled their registration in the premises and had closed the enforcement proceedings. The first applicant also submitted that the bailiffs had enforced the judgment of 25 January 2010, having disregarded the fact that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed by a decision of 2 August 2010 of the Krasnodar Regional Court. 29.  On 2 September 2010 the Town Court accepted the complaint, having confirmed that the bailiffs had unlawfully carried out the enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2010. 30.  The applicants also complained to the prosecution authorities. The prosecutors responded that the enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2010 had been carried out in violation of the requirements of Russian law and in disregard of a stay in the enforcement proceedings, of which the bailiffs had been fully aware. The prosecutor’s office lodged a motion with the Town Court, seeking annulment of the bailiffs’ decision of 13 August 2010. Another motion was sent to the bailiffs’ office, by which it was advised to seek interpretation of the judgment of 25 January 2010 in the light of the judgment of 21 November 2001. 31.  In September 2010 the applicants moved back into the premises. Several days later representatives of Ms A. attempted to evict the applicants from the house. However, their attempts failed. 32.  On 25 November 2010 the bailiffs again evicted the applicants from the premises, having left their furniture and personal belongings in the yard near the building. The applicants provided the Court with colour photographs depicting the outcome of the eviction proceedings. As is shown on the photos, the applicants were forced to live in the street with their furniture and personal belongings scattered all over the street in front of the building from which they had been evicted. Signs declaring the applicants’ ownership and warning off possible thieves were posted on the scattered belongings. The photos also showed the new owners of the building installing wooden shutters on the building windows. 33.  By a final judgment of 31 March 2011, the Krasnodar Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the bailiffs’ actions in the enforcement proceedings, having noted that the applicants had witnessed the enforcement and had helped the bailiffs to move their belongings from the premises. The court also observed that the bailiffs had not been officially notified of a stay in the enforcement proceedings. 34.  On 7 June 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 25 January and 20 May 2010 and dismissed Ms A.’s claims against the applicants in full. It concluded that the courts had committed a serious breach of substantive and procedural law, having ordered the applicants’ eviction from the premises in disregard of the final and binding judgment of 21 November 2001. The Supreme Court reiterated that on 21 November 2001 the court had confirmed the applicants’ right to live in the premises and had forbidden their eviction without them being provided with suitable replacement housing. It also observed that an encumbrance had been attached to the sale‑purchase contract in respect of the resort property, according to which the new or any subsequent owner of the resort was to provide the applicants with a flat should he or she wish to evict them from the resort building. 35.  A month later the Anapa Town Court declared a reversal of the enforcement of the judgment of 25 January 2010 and ordered that the applicants be moved into the premises from which they had been evicted and that their right to use those premises for living accommodation be registered. 36.  The applicants immediately applied to the Anapa Town Bailiffs Service, seeking assistance in preserving the building, which they wished to move back into. They claimed that, having learned of the Supreme Court’s judgment, Ms A. had begun to destroy the building. Having enclosed colour photographs showing an entirely dilapidated building without a roof, doors, windows and floors, the applicants submitted that Ms A. had also cut the electricity, destroyed the sewage system, and cut the telephone and TV cables. They provided the Court with the same set of photographs. With no actions being taken in response to their pleas for assistance, the applicants lodged a number of complaints with other authorities, including the prosecutor’s office and the Regional Ombudsman. 37.  On 10 August 2011 the bailiffs informed Ms A. that the applicants were to be moved into the previously occupied premises. The Government submitted that, having observed that the building had been substantially damaged, having no roof and window frames and with the supply lines having been “shut down”, the bailiffs had considered that it was impossible to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgment and had applied to the Town Court for clarification. On 6 October 2011 the Town Court dismissed the application, as domestic law did not provide the court with the ability to tell the bailiffs what to do in such a situation. 38.  Having decided to proceed with the enforcement, the bailiffs sent a telegram to the applicants’ last known address. The applicants were told to come to the housing premises on 14 November 2011 in order to be moved into them. With the applicants failing to appear on 14 November 2011, the bailiffs terminated the proceedings, having noted that the applicants had “impeded the enforcement of the judgment” and returned the writ of execution to them. 39.  That decision was annulled by the Anapa Town Prosecutor, as there was no evidence that the applicants had been duly notified of the enforcement proceedings. 40.  A number of subsequent attempts by the bailiffs to move the applicants into the premises were unsuccessful, given the applicants’ repeated failure to appear at the premises or their having lodged requests to stay the enforcement proceedings. 41.  In the meantime, the applicants lodged an action against Ms A., the owner of the building, seeking compensation for damage, reconstruction of the housing premises and temporary provision of other housing premises for the period of the reconstruction works. On 5 June 2012 the Krasnodar Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed the claim, having noted that the premises where the applicants had used to live had not been suitable for habitation from the very beginning and therefore that their reconstruction was impossible. The court noted, at the same time, that it was open to the applicants to claim a flat from Ms A.