4.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1947 respectively and live in Bucharest. 5.  On 28 May 1994 the applicants were injured in a car accident caused by B.F. On 17 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Alexandria Court of First Instance committed B.F. for trial, mentioning that the first applicant had applied to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party seeking damages. On 16 February 1995 the second applicant claimed damages as well. 6.  On 6 May 1996 the Alexandria Court of First Instance convicted B.F. of having negligently caused bodily harm, held him personally liable and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicants. It also ordered B.F. to pay the first applicant a monthly sum pending his recovery. 7.  On 15 November 1996 the Teleorman Regional Court upheld the appeals lodged by all the parties and ordered that the case be severed, fixing a hearing for the continuation of the ruling on the civil action. It considered that the first-instance court should have brought the technical and medical expert reports up to date and should have ordered an expert accountant’s report. This ruling was upheld on 10 April 1997 by a final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 8.  Of the thirty-eight hearings held between 1 July 1996 and 10 December 1999 six were adjourned at the first applicant’s request. On 26 June 1998, at the first applicant’s request, the case was transferred to the Bucharest Regional Court. 9.  On 17 December 1999 the Bucharest Regional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against the amount of damages awarded by the judgment of 6 May 1996 and on 16 February 2000 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld this decision in a final judgment. 10.  On 6 July 2001 an application by the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments in the criminal proceedings quashed (recurs în anulare) was granted by the Supreme Court of Justice, which therefore set aside the judgments of 17 December 1999 and 16 February 2000 and sent the case back to the Regional Court for fresh examination. It considered that the courts had misinterpreted the law, that the quantum of damages had not been correctly assessed and that the Bucharest Regional Court had, on 3 December 1999, unjustifiably rejected the expert report proposed and paid for by the applicants. It further considered an expert accountant’s report necessary. 11.  During the retrial, seventeen hearings were held before the Regional Court, none of which was adjourned as a result of requests by the applicants. 12.  On 9 December 2002 the Bucharest Regional Court upheld the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court and increased the amount of damages. The court also held that the applicants had renounced their claim for a vehicle adapted to their disability. 13.  The applicants appealed again. During the hearing of 17 April 2003, they maintained before the Bucharest Court of Appeal that they had not renounced the claim in relation to the vehicle. 14.  On 24 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal gave a final decision rejecting as unfounded the applicants’ subsequent appeal on the grounds that their allegations were not supported by the evidence. 15.  On 12 May 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in a final decision, rejected the applicants’ objection to the execution of the judgment of 9 December 2002. The court considered that the applicants’ request to increase the amount of damages was of a civil nature and could not be raised as an objection to the execution of the judgment.