5.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1967 respectively and live in Pomorie. 6.  The two applicants are a mother and her daughter. The first applicant was an employee of a state-owned company. In 1991 and 1993 the company granted the tenancy of a house to the first applicant. In 1992 its managing body decided to sell the house to the applicants at its market value. The sale did not take place for unspecified reasons. In 1993 tenancy was also granted to the second applicant. 7.  On an unspecified date, most probably in 1994, the title to the house was transferred to the municipality. The applicants are still occupying the house as tenants. 8.  On an unspecified date the applicants requested the Pomorie Municipal Council to be allowed to buy the house. On 25 April 1994 the Municipal Council approved the sale and ordered the mayor to proceed with the relevant formalities and to conclude the sale until 30 June 1994. The sale did not take place for unspecified reasons. 9.  On 17 November 1994 the applicants filed another request to the Municipal Council for purchasing the house. By letter of 26 June 1995 the municipality informed the applicants that in connection with their request they needed to submit certain documents. It is not clear whether the applicants submitted those documents. In any event, there is no information that the Municipal Council allowed the sale. 10.  In the period of 1995-97 the applicants made major repairs to the house and in 2000 brought an action against the municipality, seeking reimbursement of the expenses they had incurred. 11.  In a judgment of 26 August 2003 the Burgas Regional Court allowed partially the claim. Upon appeal, on 12 October 2004 the Burgas Court of Appeal rendered a judgment in the applicants’ favour. This judgment became final on an unspecified date shortly thereafter as the parties did not lodge a cassation appeal. 12.  On 5 January 2005 the applicants obtained a writ of execution against the Pomorie municipality for 21,660 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 11,000 euros (EUR), which included the amount awarded by the courts and the expenses incurred by the applicants during the court proceedings, as well as the relevant interest. 13.  On 25 March 2005 the applicants made a fresh request to Pomorie Municipal Council to sell them the house. In particular, they proposed to the municipality when determining the price of the house to take into account the compensation awarded with the judgment of 12 October 2004 and to reduce the price accordingly. The applicants enclosed a copy of the writ. On 8 April 2005 they made an identical request to the mayor and again enclosed a copy of the writ. 14.  It appears that the authorities did not respond to the requests and that the situation remained unchanged until June 2008. 15.  On 9 June 2008 the applicants made another request to the Pomorie Municipal Council to sell them the house. On 18 July 2008 the Municipal Council ordered an inventory and assessment of the house. It also decided, inter alia, to explore other opportunities and offer another property in order to settle the debt. It does not appear that the Municipal Council took a decision to allow the sale. 16.  On 6 April 2009 the applicants presented an assessment of the house to the municipality. Apparently, no further action in this respect was taken by the authorities. On 24 September 2009 the applicants challenged the tacit refusal of the mayor to enforce the Municipal Council’s decision to sell the house of 25 April 1994 before the Burgas Administrative Court. On 2 April 2010 the court rejected the appeal, finding that the tacit refusal in question was not an administrative act and was not subject to judicial review, as in concluding the sale the mayor had acted on equal footing with the applicants. The applicants did not file a cassation appeal. 17.  Meanwhile, after the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure in March 2008, on 26 August 2009 the applicants requested the bailiff to institute enforcement proceedings against the municipality. On 7 October 2009 the bailiff presented the writ before the financial department of the municipality for execution. 18.  On 1 March 2010 the bailiff invited the municipality to pay the debt. On 26 March 2010 the municipality informed the applicants that the amount claimed would become part of the current or next-year budget plan as at that moment the municipality did not dispose of financial means to settle the debt. 19.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 2010 the municipality brought an action against the applicants before the Burgas Regional Court, seeking compensation from the applicants for unpaid rent. It appears that the proceedings were discontinued at first instance on 31 March 2010. It is not clear how the appeal proceedings unfolded. 20.  In October 2010 the municipality initiated a procedure for reaching an agreement with the applicants in respect of the pending debt. The actual agreement was concluded on 11 May 2011. It stated that the municipality had a pending judgment debt against the applicants and that the applicants owed compensation for unpaid rent to the municipality. The parties agreed that the municipality would pay, in particular, the majority of the judgment debt and would sell, following the relevant formalities, the house to the applicants. 21.  Separately, in 2005 the first applicant bought a portable kiosk and requested to be allowed to rent municipally-owned land in order to be able to exploit it. Apparently, this was refused by the municipality.