10.  The applicants, Netherlands nationals born in 1920 and 1957 respectively, were partners in a timber trading enterprise based in Heeze. They operated as a trading partnership (vennootschap onder firma). 11.  Mr Mathijs Henricus Meulendijks died in September 2000. The proceedings are being pursued in his stead by his heirs. For convenience, Mr Mathijs Henricus Meulendijks will continue to be referred to hereinafter as an applicant (“the first applicant”) although his heirs now have this status. 12.  On 7 December 1988, a preliminary criminal investigation (gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) was opened against the applicants’ trading partnership on suspicion of forgery committed for fiscal purposes. On 13 December 1988, in the context of this investigation, the applicants’ business premises were searched and a major part of the office records was seized by the investigating authorities. 13.  By letters of 16 and 23 December 1988, the applicants’ lawyer unsuccessfully requested the public prosecutor to return the items seized on 13 December 1988 in order to allow the trading partnership to continue its business activities. 14.  At some unspecified date, the applicants’ lawyer was informed by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) that the seized office records would be returned after a final examination (slotverhoor). This examination took place on 28 February 1991. 15.  On 19 March 1991, the applicants’ trading partnership, as a separate legal entity, received a formal notification that no further criminal proceedings would be brought against it (kennisgeving van niet verdere vervolging). 16.  Since the seized office records had still not been returned, the applicants’ lawyer informed the investigating judge by letters of 25 March and 8 April 1991 that, if the office records were not returned by a certain date, a formal complaint (beklag) about the continuation of the seizure would be filed with the Regional Court. At some later date part of the seized office records was returned. The return of the remaining part was refused. 17.  At some unspecified date, the first applicant was summoned to appear on 23 May 1991 before the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch on charges under Article 225 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) and Article 68 of the General State Taxation Act (Algemene Wet inzake Rijksbelastingen). Criminal proceedings were also brought against the second applicant. 18.  In the subsequent criminal proceedings against the first applicant, the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, in its judgment of 27 April 1994, declared the prosecution inadmissible for non-compliance with the reasonable time requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The criminal proceedings brought against the second applicant ended with the decision of the Court of Appeal of 27 April 1994 in which the summons against the second applicant was declared null and void, also for failure to respect the reasonable time requirement. 19.  The applicants’ counsel lodged a request for the return of the office records in July 1994. The applicants state that part of the records were returned in September of that year. The remainder was returned later. 20.  On 28 March 1989, the Occupational Association for the Timber and Furniture Industry and the Timber Wholesale Trade (Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Hout- en Meubelindustrie en Groothandel in Hout, hereinafter referred to as “the Occupational Association”) sent the applicants corrected demands (correctienota’s) for social-security contributions over the years 1985-1987. The Occupational Association considered that the applicants had paid undeclared wages or had been involved in an excessive reimbursement of expenses. 21. By letter of 7 July 1989, the applicants objected to these corrected demands. The applicants denied having paid undeclared wages or having been involved in excessive reimbursement of expenses. In this letter, the applicants requested the Occupational Association to give formal confirmation (voor beroep vatbare beschikking) of their demands. 22.  It is stated by the Government and not denied by the applicants that the Occupational Association wrote to the applicants on 2 August 1989 asking them to substantiate their objections. 23.  On 7 March 1990, the Occupational Association again requested the applicants to substantiate their objections to the demands. 24.  On 9 March 1990, the Occupational Association sent the applicants another, similar corrected demand for the year 1988. 25.  By letter of 28 March 1990, the applicants also objected to this further demand and requested its formal confirmation. In the same letter they asked to be allowed more time to substantiate their objections, in view of the possibility that a compromise might be reached. 26.  The applicants made written submissions in support of their objections on 30 August 1990 and further offered a compromise solution. On 31 October 1990, after part of the seized office records had been returned to them, the applicants submitted additional reasons for their objections. 27.  On 7 November 1990, an administrator of the Occupational Association drew up an internal report and, towards the end of March 1991, the administrator presented supplementary recommendations. These were approved on 20 June 1991 by the “Small Commission” (Kleine Commissie) of the Occupational Association. 28.  On 3 July 1991, the Occupational Association issued the formal confirmation with the reasons for its decision. According to this decision, the applicants had to pay an additional 288,224.28 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for social-security contributions on grounds of an excessive reimbursement of expenses (which were considered as wages by the Occupational Association) and the payment of undeclared wages. 29.  The applicants lodged an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal (Raad van Beroep) on 29 July 1991 and further substantiated their grounds of appeal on 27 August 1991. On 10 January 1992, the Occupational Association replied in writing to the applicants’ submissions on appeal. The applicants responded in writing on 29 June 1992 and the Association’s further written reaction was submitted on 18 February 1993. 30.  In the course of the restructuring of the Netherlands judiciary, the case was transferred from the Appeals Tribunal to the Regional Court of ‘s‑Hertogenbosch on 1 July 1992. 31.  Following a hearing held on 6 April 1993, the Regional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal by a judgment of 17 May 1993. The applicants lodged a further appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep). 32.  On 18 June 1993, the applicants submitted their grounds of appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal, to which the Occupational Association replied on 24 December 1993. On 6 January 1995, the applicants made further submissions to the Central Appeals Tribunal after a part of the office records became available to them. The Occupational Association replied on 20 January, 12 October and 7 November 1995. The applicants submitted further information on 10 May 1996. 33.  Following a hearing held on 30 May 1996 during which three witnesses and an expert were heard at the applicants’ request, the Central Appeals Tribunal, in its judgment of 11 July 1996, quashed both the decision of 3 July 1991 and the judgment of 17 May 1993. It accepted that the applicants had not paid excessive reimbursements for expenses, but found that the recovery of unpaid social-security contributions for undeclared wages was justified in principle. However, on the latter point, the decision against which appeal had been made, was insufficiently reasoned. It invited the Occupational Association to reconsider its decision rejecting the applicants’ proposals for a compromise in order to avoid prolonging the proceedings any further. 34.  Insofar as the applicants had complained of the delay between their request for and the issue of the formal confirmation by the Occupational Association, the Central Appeals Tribunal – in the light of the European Court’s findings in its Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands judgment of 9 December 1994 – noted that, following the applicants’ request of 7 July 1989, the Occupational Association had requested the applicants on 7 March 1990 to substantiate their objections and that, after having requested a delay, the applicants replied to this request on 30 August 1990 and further offered a compromise solution. The Central Appeals Tribunal also noted that on 31 October 1990 the applicants had sent additional reasons for their objections, that an internal report had been drafted on 7 November 1990 which had been submitted to the Small Commission of the Occupational Association and that the formal confirmation had been issued on 3 July 1991. 35.  Noting the complexity of the case and the contents of the applicants’ submissions, the Central Appeals Tribunal held that, although the decision-making process up to the delivery of the formal confirmation had been pursued “with little diligence” (met weinig voortvarendheid), the Occupational Association had not acted so slowly that Article 6 of the Convention had been violated.