4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Sochi. 5.  The applicant obtained three judgments in her favour against various domestic authorities specified in the Appendix. 6.  The judgments were either enforced with a delay or remained unenforced until the date of receipt of the parties’ latest submissions, as specified in the table below. 7.  According to the Government, to enforce the judgment of 23 June 2005 the authorities held a public auction to determine a company to perform the renovation of the applicant’s flat in Yakutsk. On 3 October 2008 the applicant refused to let the employees of the winner private company in, and they were unable to start the renovation works in the flat. In November 2008 the bailiffs sent a notification to the applicant that the renovation works were scheduled for 19 November 2008, but the notification was never delivered to her, as in the meantime she had moved to a different town. In March 2009 the bailiffs and the local administration employees attempted to visit the flat in question and compiled an act on the applicant’s absence from the flat. 8.  On 11 November 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 41st Court Circuit of Yakutsk granted the applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ inaction in various rounds of the enforcement proceedings concerning other judgments in her favour and ordered the bailiffs’ service of Yakutsk to pay the applicant 200,000.15 Russian roubles (RUB) of compensation. 9.  The applicant requested to amend the judgment, to replace the respondent authority by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. Referring to the applicant’s request, on 9 February 2005 the Justice of the Peace, of the 41st Court Circuit of Yakutsk annulled the judgment of 11 November 2004 and ordered that the proceedings be reopened. 10.  In May 2005 the case was forwarded for examination to the Yakutsk Town Court according to the jurisdiction rules, on the respondent’s request. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision to transfer the case; the final decision was issued on 16 June 2005 by the Yakutsk Town Court. On 28 June 2005 the proceedings were suspended on the applicant’s request. Since that date the applicant had not lodged any further applications with domestic courts. On 20 December 2005 the Yakutsk Town Court left the applicant’s action against the bailiffs without examination, for the applicant’s lack of interest in maintaining the case. The applicant did not appeal against the decision. 11.  On 19 November 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court granted the applicant’s civil action against the municipal unitary enterprise “Payment Processing Centre” (МУП «ЕРКЦ») of Yakutsk. The court found that the respondent company, when calculating the communal charges, had failed to take account of the water provider’s failure to supply water to the applicant’s flat in summer, as well as of the applicant’s absence from home for a specific period of time. The court ordered the enterprise (1) to count RUB 25,500 already paid by the applicant towards her debt in respect of communal charges; to recalculate the charges on account of (2) the applicant’s long-term absence and (3) the lack of hot water supply; and (4) to provide information about communal services already paid by her. 12.  On 22 December 2004 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal. The court found, in particular, that the enterprise was a due respondent, as the Yakutsk administration had delegated to it the power to collect communal charges from the population. 13.  The debtor company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise set up by a decision of the local administration. The company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the administration in order to carry out its statutory activities. The parties did not provide information on its core activities. It appears that it was, inter alia, in charge of collection of communal charges from local population. It also provided programming, data processing and IT consultancy services. 14.  According to the Government, on 14 December 2004 the company’s activity was discontinued as the company was re-structured in the form of transformation (реорганизована в форме преобразования) and incorporated as open joint-stock company OAO “Payment Processing Centre” («ОАО ЕРКЦ», “the OAO”). On the same date a relevant record was made in the Register of Legal Entities. The parties did not provide information on the owners of the newly-created company’s shares, did not submit a copy of the transfer and acceptance act and did not provide any details on the legal succession issue. 15.  On 21 January 2005 the writs of execution were issued in respect of the judgment of 19 November 2004, and on 1 February 2005 the enforcement proceedings were opened. 16.  Referring to a “notification” dated 19 April 2005 by the municipal unitary enterprise “Payment Processing Centre”[1], the Government submitted that on an unspecified date the judgment had been enforced in part, in so far as the obligations to count the amount toward the applicant’s debt and to recalculate the charges on account of the lack of hot water were concerned. They did not submit a copy of the notification. 17.  It appears that on 6 September 2007 the writs were returned to the bailiffs by an unspecified person or authority without execution. 18.  On 12 September 2007 the bailiffs’ service discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the remaining part of the judgment on account of the impossibility to enforce it and returned the writs of execution to the Yakutsk Town Court. The parties did not provide copies of the relevant documents. 19.  According to the Government, on 23 August 2008 the OAO was liquidated.