4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Kizel, Perm Region. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below. 5.  The applicants sued the municipal unitary enterprise “Gorvodokanal” (МУП «Горводоканал») (hereafter “the company”) for salary arrears. 6.  The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise set up by a decision of the local administration and provided water supply in the town of Kizel. 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. 7.  On 7 September 2006 the company was declared insolvent and its liquidation started. 8.  In 2007 and 2009 domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in the applicants’ favour, to be paid by the company. Particulars of each judgment are summarised in the appended table. 9.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the awards became enforceable. 10.  The applicants alleged that the judgments had remained unenforced. According to the Government, all the judgments, except the one delivered on 16 October 2009 in Mr Martov’s favour, had been fully enforced in December 2007-April 2010. The judgment of 16 October 2009 had not been enforced since Mr Martov had failed to submit the execution writ to the liquidator. The Government corroborated their statements by a certificate issued by the company’s liquidator on 6 February 2012. According to that document, the judgment of 1 August 2007 in Mr Martov’s favour had been enforced in full, whereas the execution writ issued in 2009 had never reached the liquidator. The document says nothing about other applicants.
 11.  The applicants submitted to the Court a copy of a letter they had received from the Prosecutor’s office of Kizel, dated 3 June 2011. According to the letter, in November 2009 Mr Martov submitted to the liquidator the execution writ in respect of the judgment of 16 October 2009.