9.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1947 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 10.  The applicants own the first floor of a house with a yard in Plovdiv. In May 1992 the owners of a neighbouring building started reconstructing it without obtaining the necessary permission from the building control authorities. The works were presented as a reconstruction of an existing house, but it seems that in fact the old building was pulled down and replaced by a higher and larger structure. 11.  In May and June 1992 the applicants filed complaints with the mayor and the chief architect of the municipality. They alleged that their consent for the construction had not been obtained and that the plan of the new building did not meet the relevant legal requirements. 12.  On an unspecified date the municipal authorities ordered the suspension of the construction. The building plan was modified and the modifications were communicated to the applicants. 13.  On 7 September 1992 the applicants submitted objections against their neighbours' request for legalisation of the construction. 14.  On 19 January 1993 the municipal authorities dismissed the applicants' objections. 15.  By a decision of 18 March 1993 the construction was legalised. 16.  On 14 June 1993 the applicants appealed against the 18 March 1993 legalisation decision to the Plovdiv Regional Court. 17.  At the first hearing, which took place on 15 July 1993, the applicants requested the court to constitute their neighbours as defendants, alongside the municipality of Plovdiv. The court acceded to their request and adjourned the case. 18.  The second hearing was held on 23 August 1993. Pursuant to a request by the applicants the court ordered a technical expert report on the question whether the construction had been effected in compliance with the relevant technical rules. 19.  The third hearing took place on 29 December 1993. One of the defendants stated that he had not received a copy of the applicants' appeal and requested an adjournment. The first applicant requested a graphological expert report to determine whether a signature appearing in the municipal records, relating to the construction, was in fact his. The court acceded to the parties' requests and adjourned the case. 20.  The next hearing was held on 11 April 1994. The court admitted in evidence the technical and the graphological experts' reports and questioned the experts. The applicants' neighbours requested a new technical expert report to be drawn up by three experts. The court agreed and adjourned the case. 21.  A hearing listed for 30 June 1994 failed to take place because one of the defendants could not attend. 22.  At the next hearing, which took place on 26 October 1994, the three experts presented their report. Finding that they had failed to examine certain relevant documents, the court instructed them to do so and also asked them an additional question, as requested by the defendants. The case was adjourned. 23.  The last hearing before the Plovdiv Regional Court took place on 25 January 1995. The court admitted the three experts' report and certain other documents in evidence. It also heard the parties' closing arguments and reserved judgment. 24.  In a judgment of 30 June 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. 25.  On 24 August 1995 the applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. 26.  Noting that the applicants had not paid the requisite fee, the court instructed them to do so. They paid the fee on 11 September 1995. 27.  On unspecified dates in September and October 1995 copies of the petition for review were served on the other parties and on 20 October 1995 the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court. 28.  In 1997, following a restructuring of the judicial system in Bulgaria, all administrative cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court were transmitted to the newly established Supreme Administrative Court. 29.  A hearing listed by the Supreme Administrative Court for 3 November 1997 failed to take place because the applicants' neighbours had not been duly summoned. 30.  On 12 January 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing. It heard the parties' arguments and reserved judgment. 31.  In a final judgment of 30 March 1998 Supreme Administrative Court reversed the Plovdiv Regional Court's judgment and declared the 18 March 1993 legalisation decision void, as it had not been made by the competent officer. 32.  In March 1998 the construction in the neighbouring estate had already been completed.
II.  THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 109 OF THE PROPERTY ACT 33.  On 28 April 1993 the applicants issued proceedings against their neighbours at the Plovdiv District Court. They argued that the construction in the neighbouring estate had intruded into their yard and impeded the normal use of their house as it prevented the access of sunlight. The applicants sought a permanent injunction under section 109 of the Property Act requiring their neighbours to restore the situation to what it had formerly been. 34.  On 11 October 1993 the Plovdiv District Court, acting pursuant to the motion of the applicants, stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings under the Territorial and Urban Planning Act. In 1998, after their completion, the proceedings between the applicants and their neighbours resumed. 35.  In a judgment of 11 January 1999 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the applicants' action. 36.  The applicants appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. 37.  The first hearing before that court took place on 7 June 2000. The court admitted certain documents in evidence and pursuant to the motion of the applicants ordered an expert report to determine the extent to which the construction in their neighbours' plot was interfering with their property. 38.  A hearing listed for 27 September 2000 did not take place because the expert was unavailable. 39.  The next hearing was held on 4 December 2000. The court heard the expert and admitted his report in evidence. One of the defendants requested the court to ask the expert an additional question. The court acceded to the request over the objection of the applicants, but fined the defendant for having failed to make it in due time. 40.  A hearing took place on 1 March 2001. The court heard the expert and admitted his additional report in evidence. One of the defendants requested the court to ask the expert an additional question. The court acceded to the request over the objection of the applicants and adjourned the case. 41.  The last hearing before the Plovdiv Regional Court took place on 9 May 2001. The court heard the expert and admitted his additional report in evidence. After hearing the parties' argument, the court reserved judgment. 42.  In a judgment of 11 August 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court reversed the lower court's judgment and allowed the applicants' action. 43.  On 18 October 2001 the applicants' neighbours appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court of Cassation. 44.  A hearing was held on 12 December 2002. The court heard the parties' argument and reserved judgment. 45.  In a judgment of 16 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Plovdiv Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 46.  A hearing listed by the Plovdiv Regional Court for 24 November 2003 was adjourned because one of the defendants was ill and could not attend. 47.  Another hearing, fixed for 16 February 2004, was also adjourned because another defendant was ill and did not show up. 48.  At the time of the latest information from the parties (15 March 2004) the proceedings were still pending before the Plovdiv Regional Court. A hearing was listed for 19 April 2004. 49.  Following the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the order legalising the construction of the applicants' neighbours' house was void (see paragraph 31 above), on 11 January 1999 the applicants issued proceedings against, inter alia, the municipality of Plovdiv, claiming damages for the unlawful actions and omissions of the municipality with regard to their neighbours' construction. The Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the applicants' action, but on appeal, in a judgment of 3 April 2002 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals allowed their claims in full, awarding them 5,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) each, with interest as from 11 January 1999. The municipality appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Cassation. However, under the relevant rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, that judgment, although subject to appeal, was enforceable. On 20 May 2002 the applicants' lawyer requested the issuing of a writ of execution pursuant to the judgment and on 28 May 2002 such a writ was issued. The writ was presented to the municipality, but as of March 2004 the amount had remained still unpaid. On 5 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Plovdiv Court of Appeals' judgment and remitted the case to that court. The proceedings are still pending.