4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Mingachevir. 5.  The applicant worked as the executive director at the “Mingachevir Technical Rubber” Joint Stock Company, which was an enterprise under the control of the Department for Privatization and Management of State Property (“the DPMSP”) of the Ministry of the Economic Development. On 15 March 2005 the applicant was dismissed from his job by an order of the DPMSP of the Ministry of the Economic Development. 6.  The applicant lodged an action against the DPMSP, seeking reinstatement in his previous job and payment of his unpaid salaries. 7.  On 25 August 2005 the Sabayil District Court granted the applicant’s claim, ordering his reinstatement in his previous job. The court also ordered the DPMSP to pay the applicant his unpaid salary for the period from 15 March 2005 (date of dismissal) until the date of his reinstatement, without specifying the due amount. 8.  On 25 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 25 August 2005, dismissing the DPMSP’s appeal. The judgment became enforceable immediately after its delivery. On 13 December 2005 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the DPMSP. 9.  On 12 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment and dismissed the cassation appeal lodged by the State Committee for Management of State Property (“the SCMSP”), which was the legal successor of the former DPMSP. 10.  It appears from the documents in the case file that in spite of the issuance of the writ of execution and numerous letters of the enforcement officers requesting the execution of the judgment, the SCMSP took no action to comply with the judgment in question. 11.  Following the SCMSP’s continuous failure to comply with the judgment, on 14 July 2006 the Sabayil District Court decided to refer the case to the Sabayil District Prosecutor’s Office for institution of criminal proceedings against the SCMSP’s responsible official for non-execution of an enforceable judgment. However, it transpires from the case file that on an unspecified date the prosecuting authorities returned the case to the enforcement officers without taking any formal decision as regards the institution of criminal proceedings. 12.  At the time of the latest communication with the parties in June 2011, the judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced.