4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1935 respectively and live in Popovo. 5.  By a mayor's order of 9 May 1988 the applicants' house in Popovo was expropriated with a view to developing the land as a residential area. The order was based on sections 95 and 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (“the TUPA”) and provided that the applicants were to be compensated with a two-room flat in a building which the municipality intended to construct. 6.  In 1989 the house expropriated from the applicants was demolished. 7.  By an order of 19 April 1991, under section 103 of the TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact future flat with which the applicants were to be compensated. Its surface was to be 73 square metres. 8.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the municipal authorities opened with the State Savings Bank a blocked housing bank account in the name of the applicants and deposited an amount corresponding to the value of their expropriated real property. 9.  The construction of the building where the applicants' apartment was to be located started in 1994. 10.  For an unspecified period the applicants lived in their son's flat (their son was allotted a municipal flat). Later they rented other accommodation and in 1996 were housed in a makeshift dwelling provided by the municipality. 11.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicants brought an action for damages against the Popovo municipality for wrongful failure to fulfil its obligations to build and provide them with a flat. 12.  On 8 January 2001 they complained to the President of the National Assembly about the failure of the municipality to provide them with a flat. On 27 March 2001 they filed a complaint with the President of the Republic. 13.  In a final judgment of 27 May 2003 the courts awarded the applicants 6,750 new Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 3,500 euros (EUR), in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The indemnification covered the period 1991-2000. The courts held that the municipality's failure to provide the applicants with a flat was unlawful and that the situation of uncertainty had caused them to suffer mental anguish. 14.  In another judgment - of 31 August 2005 - the applicants' claim for pecuniary damages (loss of rent which they would have received had they let the flat) was dismissed as the courts found that this was speculative. 15.  In January 2006 the applicants accepted an offer by the municipality to be compensated with an apartment in a different building. The new flat which had a surface area of 64 square metres, was delivered to the applicants in August 2007. 16.  In September 2007 the applicants brought an action against the Popovo municipality. They claimed BGN 7,940, which represented the difference between the value of the flat allotted to them originally and the flat they received eventually. It appears that these proceedings are still pending.