4.  By way of an administrative decision of 5 April 1978 a property belonging to the applicants’ mother and father, situated in Miastko and listed in the land register under entry no. 5001 of a surface area of 1,372 square metres was expropriated. 5.  On 19 January 1990 the applicants requested the Mayor of Miastko (Burmistrz Miastka) that the property be restored to them, arguing that the purpose for which it had been expropriated, namely the construction of a block of flats, had not been implemented. This request was reiterated on 9 March 1991. The applicants requested that the decision be declared null and void under Article 156 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. 6.  On 27 May 1991 the District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) in Miastko refused the applicants’ request. This decision was upheld by the Słupsk Governor (Wojewoda słupski) on 8 July 1991. 7.  On 19 December 1991 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the applicants’ appeal and quashed the contested decision. 8.  On 30 September 1992 the Słupsk Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) refused to declare the expropriation decision null and void. The applicants appealed. 9.  On 29 June 1996 the Minister of Construction and Land Planning quashed the decision and ordered that the case be re-examined. 10.  On 12 January 1997 the Słupsk Regional Office dismissed the applicants’ request. The applicants appealed, arguing that the decision was unlawful. 11.  In March 1997 the applicants complained to the Ombudsman about the excessive length of the proceedings. 12.  On 5 May 1997 the applicants complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the failure of the administration to rule on their 1990 application. On an unspecified later date that court gave a decision by which it ordered the competent authorities to give a ruling on the merits of the case. 13.  On 17 June 1999 the President of the National Office of Housing and Urban Planning (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) upheld the decision of 12 January 1997. The applicants appealed. 14.  By a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court given on 11 October 2000 the decision of 12 January 1997 was quashed as not being in compliance with the applicable laws. 15.  By a decision of 31 August 2001 the President of the National Office of Housing and Urban Planning declared the expropriation decision of 1978 partly null and void. 16.  On 31 October 2001 the applicants requested the municipality to transfer the possession of the building to them. 17.  On 5 November 2001 the municipality informed them that it had acquired ownership of the property by way of an administrative decision given in 1991. Under the 2001 decision only the transfer of ownership from the applicants’ parents to the State Treasury had been declared null and void, but the transfer from the State to the municipality still remained valid. Hence, the municipality was not obliged to give the property back to the applicants. 18.  On 12 December 2001 the Starosta Bytowski discontinued the proceedings, finding that they were devoid of purpose. He observed that in 1991 the ownership of the property had been transferred to the municipality. Hence, the decision of 1991 had to be quashed first in order for the decision of 31 August 2001 to become enforceable. 19.  The applicants complained to the Ombudsman about the failure to carry out the 2001 decision and about the excessive length of the proceedings. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, in May 2002 the Słupsk Governor informed the applicants that the fact that in 1991 the ownership had been transferred to the municipality made it impossible for the State administration to hand the property over to the applicants. 20.  In April 2002 the applicants were referred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 21.  By a decision of 10 January 2003 the Ministry declared the 1991 decision by which the ownership of the property concerned had been transferred from the State to the municipality null and void.