4.  The applicants are a married couple. The first applicant was born in 1962 and the second applicant was born in 1960. They live in Jelenia Gora. 5.  In 1987 the applicants bought a plot of land with a partially constructed main house and an outhouse. In 2001 they made a few alterations to the outhouse. 6.  On 8 November 2001, on a request of one of the neighbours, the Jelenia Góra District Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) instituted administrative proceedings contesting the legality of the outhouse. 7.  On 3 December 2001 the District Inspector ordered the applicants to stop all alterations to the building in question. 8.  On 9 January 2002 the administrative proceedings were stayed in order to verify whether the works were carried out in accordance with the local development plan. 9.  On 8 May 2002 the District Inspector gave a decision and ordered the applicants to carry out certain works in order for the building to be considered legal. The applicants were to do these works within a time-limit of one month. 10.  On 24 June 2002 the District Inspector quashed its previous decision. 11.  On 8 August 2002 the District Inspector gave another decision ordering the applicants to carry out extensive alterations to the outhouse. The applicants appealed. 12.  On 24 October 2002 the Wrocław Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision (Dolnoslaski Wojewódzki Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 13.  On 1 April 2003 a viewing of the site was held. 14.  On 9 June 2003 the applicants submitted an expert's opinion relating to the legality of the building in question. 15.  On 18 November 2003 the District Inspector informed the applicants that the expert's opinion was not complete. They submitted the relevant document on 20 December 2003. 16.  On 13 April 2004 the District Inspector informed the applicants that the proceedings were pending and the legality of the building was being considered. 17.  On 1 December 2004 the District Inspector gave a decision and ordered the applicants to demolish the outhouse. The applicants appealed. On 14 March 2005 the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 18.  On 15 December 2005 the District Inspector again ordered the applicants to demolish the building in question. On the applicants' appeal, on 21 February 2006 the Regional Inspector upheld the first-instance decision. 19.  On 19 October 2006 the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance authority. 20.  On 27 July 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint under Article 37 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure with the Regional Inspector (about the delay in the proceedings). 21.  On 22 August 2007 the Regional Inspector replied that the District Inspector was thoroughly examining the case in order to avoid any errors. While indeed the proceedings were conducted slowly, at this stage of the procedure he did not see any reason to intervene. 22.  On 11 September 2007 the District Inspector asked the applicants to submit an expert's opinion on the technical conditions of the outhouse. The opinion was submitted on 26 October 2007. Subsequently, the District Inspector on several occasions asked the applicants to submit additional information in particular as regards the expert's qualifications. They submitted the required documents on 31 December 2007 and maintained that there was no need for any additional information. 23.  On 15 April 2008 the District Inspector ordered an expert's opinion at the applicants' expense. 24.  On 3 July 2008, in reply to the applicants' complaint the Regional Inspector confirmed that there had been a delay in the proceedings and ordered the District Inspector to proceed with the case within the time-limit of 14 days. 25.  On 15 September 2008 the expert submitted his opinion. The District Inspector also conducted a viewing of the site. 26.  On 17 September 2008 the District Inspector informed the parties that an administrative decision would be delivered and they could acquaint themselves with the evidence collected. 27.  On 2 October 2008 the applicants requested the District Inspector to comply with the instructions given by the Warsaw Administrative Court in its earlier judgment of 19 October 2006. 28.  On 9 March 2009 the District Inspector ordered the applicants to submit yet another expert's opinion as, allegedly, the opinions already submitted were not correct. 29.  On 10 June 2009 the District Inspector ordered an expert's opinion at the applicants' expense. On 22 June 2009 the applicants appealed. They stressed that they had already submitted several extensive expert opinions and that the administrative authority had all the necessary evidence to deliver a decision. 30.  The proceedings are pending before the District Inspector.