12.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1938 respectively and live in Benevento. 13.  On 23 October 1989 Mr G.P., the applicants’ father, brought proceedings against E., a company, in the Benevento District Court to have a contract for the installation of windows in his flat set aside and seeking compensation for the damage incurred. 14.  Preparation of the case for trial began on 30 November 1989. Of the eighteen hearings listed between 22 March 1990 and 18 May 1998 three were adjourned by the court of its own motion and three because E.’s lawyer had failed to appear, four were devoted to organising expert evidence, five to hearing evidence from witnesses, one was adjourned because the judge had withdrawn from the case, another one was adjourned because Mr G.P.’s lawyer had failed to appear and a further one was adjourned at his request. The applicants declared their intention to continue the proceedings following Mr G.P.’s death on 27 March 1995. 15.  On an unspecified date the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezione stralcio).
Of the six hearings listed between 15 February 1999 and 9 October 2001 two were adjourned by the court of its own motion, one was adjourned by the judge responsible for preparing the case, one was devoted to a request to set the case down for hearing of oral submissions and two to hearing the submissions. 16.  In a judgment of 30 May 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 31 October 2002, the court granted the applicants’ claims in part and awarded them 945.40 euros (EUR) in compensation for the damage sustained. 17.  On 10 October 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicants requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicants claimed 25,000,000 Italian lire (EUR 12,911.42) each in non-pecuniary damages plus an unquantified amount for costs and expenses. 18.  In a decision of 25 February 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 23 April 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:
“Whereas...
 the applicants, as Mr Giuseppe Procaccini’s heirs, continued the proceedings he had instituted in the Benevento District Court by a summons served on 23 October 1989 seeking an order against the defendant company to replace a number of defective frames that it had installed;
– during the proceedings an expert report was ordered and produced;
– the proceedings are still pending before the sezione stralcio bench;
– there has without any doubt been a breach of the reasonable-time requirement in respect of proceedings that have lasted 9 years;
– for want of proof of pecuniary damage, a total amount of 2,250 euros can be awarded under the head of non-pecuniary loss for damage to quality of life plus statutory interest to accrue from the date of the claim, on account of the very low stakes involved in the proceedings.”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages for lack of proof and awarded a global sum of EUR 2,250, on an equitable basis, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. That decision was served on 20 December 2002 and became final in February 2003. 19.  When payment was not forthcoming, on 26 May 2004 the applicants served notice on the authorities to pay the amounts owed. When that proved unsuccessful they applied for a garnishee order, which was granted them on 12 May 2005 against the Bank of Italy. According to the information provided by the applicants at the hearing on 29 June 2005, the Court of Appeal’s decision had not yet been executed. 20.  In a letter of 7 January 2003 the applicants informed the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of their application.
In the same letter the applicants also informed the Court that they did not intend to appeal to the Court of Cassation because an appeal to that court could only be on points of law.