4.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1955 respectively. The second applicant is still living in Sofia. 5.  The applicants, together with the parents of a Mr B.I., were the co‑owners of a building in Sofia and the plot of land on which it stood. In 1992 B.I.’s parents sold him one quarter of the property. 6.  In 1993 B.I. began constructing a building adjoining the original one. On five subsequent occasions, in March and July 1996, March and June 1999, and June 2005, the authorities ordered the halting of the construction or demolition of the building. B.I. challenged all of these orders by way of judicial review. Two of the cases, which the applicants joined as interested parties, are still pending (see below). 7.  On 21 March 1996 the mayor, noting that the building erected by B.I. could not be legalised, ordered its demolition. In April 1996 B.I. sought judicial review of this order by the Sofia City Court. 8.  On 23 March 1999 it gave leave to the applicants, as well as to B.I.’s wife and brother, to join the proceedings. 9.  A total of at least fifteen hearings were held between 8 June 1999 and 26 October 2007 in intervals ranging between four and eight months. Five hearings, listed for 8 June and 26 October 1999 and 25 February, 6 June and 21 November 2000, failed to take place because various parties had not been duly summoned. At least six hearings between January 2005 and October 2007 were adjourned on account of the need to summon a newly added party at her address in Toronto, Canada, by means of a letter rogatory. 10.  The Sofia City Court rendered a judgment on an unspecified date in 2010. According to the latest correspondence received from the applicants in October 2010 the proceedings at that time were pending before the second level of court. 11.  On 16 June 1999 the building control authorities, alerted by the applicants, ordered B.I. to pull down the building which he had erected. 12.  On 13 July 1999 B.I. and his wife sought judicial review of this order by the Sofia City Court. At the first hearing, held on 26 November 1999, the applicants intervened in the proceedings as interested parties. 13.  Some twenty hearings were held until February 2006 scheduled at intervals ranging from two to nine months. At least four hearings were adjourned on account of improper summoning of the parties, including of B.I’s brother who lived in Canada. Following the latter’s death in 2002 at least six hearings were adjourned on account of a failure to summon his widow, who also lived in Canada, by a letter rogatory. 14.  According to the latest correspondence received from the applicants in October 2010 the proceedings were still pending before the Sofia City Court. 15.  On three occasions – on 23 November 2000, on 18 December 2002 and on an unspecified date in 2007 the applicants lodged complaints with the Sofia City Court and the Supreme Judicial Council relating, inter alia, to the slow progress of the proceedings to which they were parties. In reply to their 2007 complaint the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants that there were no delays attributable to the authorities. 16.  In 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the local authorities which were a party to the proceedings involving the applicants that following an inspection carried out by a representative of the Inspectorate with the Supreme Judicial Council it had been established that a delay had indeed occurred and that it had been due to the abuse of process by B.I. and the high case-load of the Sofia City Court. The letter also stated that the Inspectorate had written to the Chairman of the Sofia City Court about the delays.