4.  On 18 May 1990, the applicants, who are sisters, filed with the Sofia District Court a civil action against Hydrostroy'82 Apartment Construction Cooperative (“HACC”), claiming sums allegedly owed to their late father under a 1988 agreement between him and HACC. 5.  Under the 1988 agreement the applicants' late father had undertaken to manage and supervise construction works against the payment of fees. He had worked until his death in July 1989 but had not been paid in full. The applicants thus considered that, as his heirs, they were entitled to 24,132 old Bulgarian levs (“BGL”) (the equivalent of approximately 6,000 US dollars (USD) at the relevant time) and submitted a partial claim for BGL 4,333, as is customary in legal practice. 6.  Between July and October 1990 the case could not proceed because of defective summons. In November 1990 an adjournment was necessary as the applicants had not clarified their claims. Between January 1991 and June 1992 the District Court held nine hearings. The adjournments were ordered because of defective summons, delays in the presentation of expert opinions, withdrawal of experts and alleged dilatory behaviour of the respondent party. 7.  The hearing listed for 8 October 1992 was adjourned until 16 November 1992 as HACC had not been validly summoned. 8.  On 9 November 1992 the judge decided to adjourn the hearing until 19 November 1992. 9.  On 19 November 1992 the hearing was adjourned owing to an anonymous telephone call warning that an explosive device had been installed in the court's building. Such calls were made on each of the next three dates for which the adjourned hearing was listed: 28 January, 23 March and 15 April 1993, which caused additional delay. 10.  On 17 June 1993 the hearing was adjourned as only one witness had appeared. Witnesses had been called by both parties with a view to establishing the work done on the construction site. 11.  The hearings listed for 13 October and 24 November 1993 were adjourned as witnesses and expert-witnesses had not appeared. The court fined two of them for their failure to appear without cause. 12.  At the hearing on 21 February 1994 the court replaced the expert who had failed to appear repeatedly. The case was adjourned. 13.  The hearing held on 25 April 1994 was adjourned as the court granted the applicants' disclosure order against HACC. 14.  The hearing listed for 13 June 1994 was adjourned as one of the experts did not appear. 15.  On 24 October 1994 the court, having heard the experts' opinion, accepted the applicants' request for an additional question to the experts and adjourned the examination of the case until 5 December 1994. 16.  In view of the experts' opinion who gave an estimate on the value of the construction works and the inflation, at the hearing on 5 December 1994 the applicants sought to increase their claim. The court considered that it was necessary to give them seven days to file such a request in writing and adjourned the hearing until 6 March 1995. The applicants filed a written request increasing their claim to BGL 100,000, the value of the national currency having dropped significantly since 1990. 17.  On 6 May 1995 the hearing could not proceed owing to defective summons. The final hearing was held on 17 May 1995. 18.  On 22 May 1995 the District Court delivered its judgment, served on 16 June 1995. It awarded the applicants BGL 15,851 plus interest since 18 May 1990. The court noted that the inflation and depreciation of the national currency could not be taken into account as the relevant law did not allow the revalorisation of monetary claims. 19.  On 19 June 1995 the applicants filed an appeal. The file was transmitted to the higher court with a delay of two months. 20.  The Sofia City Court held a hearing in November 1995 and dismissed the appeal by judgment of 29 December 1995. On that date the judgment awarding the applicants BGL 15,851 plus interest became enforceable. As of December 1995 the amount awarded plus interest did not exceed the equivalent of approximately USD 350. 21.  On 26 February 1996 the applicants filed a petition for review (cassation) with the Supreme Court. They argued that the lower courts' refusal to accept the revalorisation of their claim had resulted in unjust enrichment for HACC. They considered that the value of the construction work done should be evaluated on the basis of current prices. 22.  On 21 May 1997 the applicants, noting that their petition for review (cassation) must have been misfiled in the Supreme Court's registry, requested a speedy examination of their case. 23.  In 1998 the Supreme Court was divided into a Supreme Court of Cassation and a Supreme Administrative Court. 24.  A hearing before the Supreme Court of Cassation was eventually held on 10 February 1999. 25.  On 8 March 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the petition for review stating succinctly that it endorsed the reasoning of the lower courts. 26.  As of March 1999 the amount awarded to the applicants plus interest did not exceed the equivalent of approximately USD 25.