6.  Mr Atanasov (“the first applicant”) was born in 1957 and lives in Pazardzhik. He is the son-in-law of Mr Ovcharov (“the second applicant”) who was born in 1936 and lives in Aleko Konstantinovo. 7.  Between 1993 and 1994 the second applicant was the head of a farm cooperative. 8.  On 12 August 1993 the farm cooperative, represented by the second applicant, acquired a tractor (“the first tractor”) at an auction organised by another cooperative. 9.  On 31 August 1993 the first applicant acquired a similar, cheaper tractor (“the second tractor”) at a second auction organised by the same cooperative. Immediately after the auction the first applicant, assisted by the second applicant, took possession of a tractor. However, they apparently took the first tractor. 10.  The farm cooperative took possession of the second tractor on 6 September 1993. 11.  On 15 November 1993 an invoice was issued to the first applicant for the purchase of the second tractor. Subsequently, the first applicant requested the seller to reissue the sales invoice so that it indicated that he had in fact acquired the first tractor. 12.  Sometime around 11 February 1994 the farm cooperative discovered that it had a different tractor from the one it had purchased. Soon thereafter it complained to the authorities of the alleged fraud perpetrated by the applicants. 13.  On 16 May 1994 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants. 14.  On 29 March 1996 the applicants were charged with fraud and malfeasance. The charges against the first applicant were amended on 28 February 1997 to include the offence of using a falsified document to obtain another's chattel with the aim of misappropriating it. 15.  On 7 April 1997 the Pazardzhik district prosecutor's office entered an indictment against the applicants with the Pazardzhik District Court for malfeasance fraud and use of a falsified document. 16.  Between 2 June 1997 and 18 February 2000 the District Court conducted ten hearings. During this period the judge in charge of the proceedings was changed on three occasions for undisclosed reasons. At the hearing on 18 February 2000 the District Court established that there had been procedural violations at the stage of the preliminary investigation, discontinued the proceedings and remitted the case to the investigation authorities. 17.  The preliminary investigation against the applicants continued and there were no significant developments until 2004. 18.  On 29 June and 20 July 2004 the applicants filed separate requests with the Pazardzhik Regional Court under the procedure envisaged in the new Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 34 below) and petitioned the court to order the termination of the preliminary investigation against them. 19.  In decisions of 12 July and 22 July 2004 the Regional Court referred the case to the Pazardzhik regional prosecutor's office either to discontinue the preliminary investigation or to enter indictments against the applicants. In its decision of 12 July 2004 the court established that no investigative procedures whatsoever had been undertaken since 18 February 2000, when the District Court had remitted the case to the investigation authorities. 20.  Following a delay by the prosecutor's office to rule on the matter, the applicants lodged their requests again on 19 October 2004. 21.  In a decision of 28 October 2004 the regional prosecutor's office discontinued the preliminary investigation against the applicants because the time-limit for prosecution under the statute of limitations for the offences had expired. 22.  On 10 November 2004 the applicants appealed against the decision of the prosecutor's office and claimed that the grounds for terminating the preliminary investigation should be the lack of evidence of an offence and not the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution under the statute of limitations. 23.  In a decision of 22 November 2004 the District Court upheld the decision to discontinue the preliminary investigation against the applicants and found that they could not seek to amend the grounds for its termination. The court reasoned that if the applicants had wanted to have the criminal proceedings terminated because of the lack of evidence that they had perpetrated an offence then they should have requested that the proceedings continue in spite of the expiry of the time-limit under the statute of limitations, which they had not done. 24.  On 25 January 1995 the police seized the first tractor from the first applicant and impounded it as physical evidence in the pending criminal proceedings. 25.  The seizure and impounding of the first tractor was upheld on appeal by the district and regional prosecutor's offices and by the Chief Public Prosecutor on unspecified dates. 26.  The first tractor was held in storage at a police compound until it was delivered to the farm cooperative on an unspecified date before 1 April 2002. 27.  On 1 April 2002 the district prosecutor's office ordered the farm cooperative to deliver the second tractor to the second applicant, which it did not do. 28.  The applicants asserted that in the course of the preliminary investigation against them the authorities also seized a hunting rifle from each of them and held them as physical evidence. However, it is unclear when and how these actions were undertaken. 29.  In so far as can be ascertained from the documents presented, the second applicant voluntarily handed over a hunting rifle to the police on 4 October 2000, which was returned to him on 23 August 2001.