4.  The first applicant is a company registered under Cypriot law. The second applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Paralimni. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as derived from the minutes of the proceedings, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 23 September 1997 a civil action (no. 11581/97) was lodged against the applicants before the District Court of Nicosia for the payment of the amount of 15,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP), plus interest at a rate of 9 per cent from 31 December 1990 until discharge of the debt. The above amount was allegedly due by the applicants on the basis of a loan which the plaintiff had granted to them and which was evidenced by a bond signed in the customary form. The second applicant had signed the relevant bond as a guarantor. 7.  On 17 November 1997 the plaintiff filed the notice of appearance. 8.  On 8 January 1998 the plaintiff filed an application for a summary judgment in view of the applicants' failure to file their defence. On 30 January 1998 the application was fixed for mention for 20 February 1998 and then for proof for 13 March 1998. In the meantime, on 9 March 1998, the applicants filed an objection to the above application. On 13 March 1998 the application was fixed for hearing for 22 May 1998 but was adjourned on that date following a written request which had been in the meantime submitted by the plaintiff. The application was fixed for 28 September 1998 and then for 13 November 1998. It was dismissed on the latter date. 9.  On 27 November 1998 the applicants filed their defence and on 8 December 1998 the plaintiff applied to the court for the case to be fixed. On the same day the plaintiff filed his reply to the applicants' defence. 10.  On 14 December 1998 the case was fixed for 27 January 1999. On the latter date it was set for hearing for 1 June 1999. In the meantime, on 25 May 1999, a notice for admission of documents was filed by the plaintiff. 11.  From 1 June 1999 until 22 November 2000 the case was adjourned three times. On the latter date, it was fixed for programming for 15 December 2000 due to the trial judge's absence. On 15 December 2000 the court fixed the hearing for 8 May 2001 and on that date for 23 October 2001. On the latter date the case was adjourned by the court until 11 February 2002 due to the appointment of a new lawyer by the plaintiff. 12.  On 11 February 2002 the court set the case for 19 June 2002 since it had continuing hearings in two criminal cases. On the latter date the case was adjourned until 10 December 2002 due to a continuing hearing in a criminal case which the Supreme Court had instructed should be tried on a daily basis. 13.  In the meantime, on 29 November 2002, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application for summoning witnesses. The court issued an order in this respect on the same day. 14.  The hearing of the case commenced on 10 December 2002 and was then set for 22 January 2003. On that date it was adjourned until 25 February 2003 at the plaintiff's request for the reason that his lawyer was ill. The applicants' lawyer did not object to the adjournment but requested costs. These were granted by the court. 15.  The hearing of the case was concluded on 18 April 2003. It appears that, in total, four hearing sessions were held. Judgment was reserved on the above date. 16.  Furthermore, within this period, both parties filed notices for admission of documents at the hearing and the applicants filed an ex parte application for the summoning of witnesses. The court issued an order in respect of the latter application on the same day of its lodging. 17.  The Nicosia District Court delivered its judgment on 25 November 2004. It held that the relevant bond was valid and, thus, the applicants had to pay the plaintiff the amount of CYP 15,000 with interest at a rate of 9 per cent per annum. The interest was to be paid from 12 April 1990 until the aggregate interest reached the sum of CYP 15,000 and not until settlement of the amount. In accordance with the legislative provisions in force at the relevant time the amount of interest could not exceed the amount owed on the basis of the original loan. 18.  On 4 January 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the first instance judgment (civil appeal no. 2/05). In their grounds of appeal the applicants challenged the first instance judgment and the District Court judge's jurisdiction. In respect to the latter, they maintained that the trial judge had awarded an amount which exceeded his jurisdiction under law. 19.  These proceedings are currently pending. In this respect the applicants stated that the appeal had not yet been fixed for hearing. 20.  In the meantime, on 21 January 2005, the applicants filed an application for stay of execution of the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia, pending the determination of their appeal or, alternatively, any other order and/or remedy. On the same day, the court granted a temporary stay of execution until the hearing of the application. 21.  On 14 February 2005 and 3 March 2005 the applicants filed notices of objection to the above application. On 7 March 2005 the plaintiff filed an ex parte application concerning the cross-examination of the applicants. 22.  The application was heard on 4 March 2005 and was dismissed on 28 March 2005. The court considered that when balancing the facts and the conflicting rights at stake, if the plaintiff ended up winning the appeal, he would not receive more than the amount he would have taken with the execution of the first judgment in the light of the applicable law restricting interest to less than the total amount of capital owed. The court thus found that granting the application would in effect deprive the plaintiff, who had won at first instance, of the benefits of his success. Moreover, the court considered the applicants' prospects of success regarding their appeal in the main proceedings and found that the applicants had failed to establish that they had a good chance of succeeding. The court considered that their grounds of appeal were, at least prima facie, unfounded. In this connection, the court noted that the applicants had not put forward any evidence proving that the first instance judge had not had jurisdiction when he had tried the case. Furthermore, the court noted the second applicant had made a very negative impression when he had given testimony. His allegations had been held to be false and unreliable. Finally, the court emphasised that none of the applicants' arguments raised significant issues. 23.  On 11 April 2005 the applicants filed an application by summons with the Supreme Court for stay of execution of the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia pending the determination of their appeal. On 20 April 2005 the plaintiff gave notice that he would object to the application. 24.  On 22 April 2005, the applicants filed an ex parte application with the Supreme Court requesting the temporary stay of execution of the judgment until the hearing of their application by summons for stay was determined. The ex parte application was heard and dismissed on 25 April 2005. The Supreme Court noted that an application by summons had been already filed with the same reasoning and the hearing of which had been fixed for 23 June 2005 in order for the plaintiff/respondent to lodge an objection. The court found that in view of the fact that the plaintiff/respondent had been given a right to be heard in relation to the application by summons, the ex parte application could not be accepted. 25.  On 23 June 2005 the applicants informed the Supreme Court that the first instance judgment had been executed following the dismissal of their application for a temporary stay. Consequently, the applicants withdrew their application of 11 April 2005. Costs were granted in the plaintiff's/respondent's favour.