7.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1990 respectively and live in Krasnodar, the Russian Federation. 8.  In 1997 the applicants began residing in Bulgaria. The first applicant was a shareholder in several companies including Druzhba OOD and Sil-Prim OOD. She was one of the managers of Druzba OOD. 9.  On 24 May 2000 the first applicant was taken to the police station in Blagoevgrad in connection with an attempted theft of a conveyer belt line, belonging to Druzhba OOD. At about 10 p.m. on the same day criminal proceedings for theft, an offence under Article 195 of the Criminal Code (CC) were opened against the first applicant and she was questioned in that connection. She was released some time after midnight. 10.  Allegedly, the first applicant requested to make a telephone call to the second applicant, who was 10 years old at the time, but her request was not granted. 11.  On 12 December 2001 the first applicant’s case was brought before the Blagoevgrad District Court. 12.  On an unspecified date after 2002 the judge rapporteur in the case died and a new judge was appointed. 13.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the new judge resigned from her post and had to be replaced. 14.  For the period between March 2002 and May 2005 at least sixteen hearings were held, six of which were adjourned – two upon the first applicant’s request, one due to the absence of the expert, one due to improper summoning and two because of absences of members of the court panel. 15.  At the hearing of 27 September 2002 the District Court rejected the civil claim filed by one of the shareholders in Druzhba OOD, finding that he had not personally suffered damages as a result of the first applicant’s actions. It further appointed a special representative of Druzhba OOD to protect its interests in the joined civil claim against the first applicant. 16.  At the hearing of 26 October 2004 the charges against the first applicant were amended. According to the new charges the first applicant had deliberately entered into a contract for the sale of the conveyer belt line which had been disadvantageous to Druzhba OOD, an offence under Article 220 of the CC. 17.  By a judgment of 12 May 2005 the Blagoevgrad District Court found the first applicant guilty of an offence under Article 220 of the CC, sentenced her to one year’s imprisonment suspended for a period of three years and ordered her to pay Druzhba OOD damages. 18.  On appeal, by a judgment of 6 December 2005 the Blagoevgrad Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted it for fresh examination because of procedural breaches in connection with the charges under Article 220 of the CC. 19.  On 1 July 2006 the first applicant was presented with an indictment for an offence under Article 195 of the CC - theft of a conveyer belt line. 20.  At the hearing of 18 December 2006 the Blagoevgrad District Court rejected the first applicant’s objection against the appointment of a special representative of Druzhba OOD and quashed the amendment of the charges against the first applicant of 26 October 2004. The proceedings continued in respect of the charges under Article 195 of the CC. 21.  On an unspecified date in May 2007 the applicants moved to Russia. 22.  The number of hearings held after that date is not clear. 23.  In January 2009 the first applicant was summoned in her address in Russia for a hearing before the Blagoevgrad District Court but she requested the proceedings to continue in her absence. 24.  In her letter to the Court of 20 January 2010 the first applicant alleged that she had no information about the course of the proceedings. 25.  In a judgment of 15 June 2009 the Blagoevgrad District Court acquitted the first applicant. The prosecution appealed. 26.  In a judgment of 11 January 2010 the Blagoevgrad Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities with instruction that a new indictment should be prepared. 27.  In a decision of 21 September 2010, which apparently became final, the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor’s Office terminated the proceedings as the relevant statutory limitation period for prosecution had expired. 28.  Throughout the proceedings the first applicant sent numerous complaints to the courts alleging partiality and unsubstantial procedural errors, which were often examined by two or three levels of jurisdiction. On several occasions the judges examining the case recused themselves because of these complaints. 29.  On 8 August 2000 the first applicant filed a complaint about the treatment of the officers who detained her on 24 May 2000, alleging, inter alia, that she was denied the possibility to call the second applicant. 30.  In a final order of 9 July 2004 a prosecutor from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings, finding that the officers involved in the detention had acted in accordance with the legislation. There is no mentioning of the denied possibility to make a telephone call to the second applicant. 31.  On 11 September 2000 a prosecutor from the district public prosecutor’s office imposed on the first applicant a prohibition to leave Bulgaria because of the criminal proceedings against her. 32.  On 2 July 2003 the District Court authorised the first applicant to leave Bulgaria for the period between 3 July and 31 August 2003. 33.  On 12 May 2005 the Blagoevgrad District Court lifted the prohibition. 34.  On 4 December 2001 the first applicant requested the prolongation of her long-term residence permit, which was refused on 27 March 2002 on account of a provision in the Aliens Act, stating that residence permits could be refused to persons who had committed certain criminal offences. The applicant appealed. The outcome of the appeal is unknown. 35.  On 27 February 2003 she was issued a temporary residence identity card. 36.  In July 2003 the two applicants visited Russia. Upon their return to Bulgaria on 28 August 2003 they were detained at the airport’s transition zone as it was established that the second applicant had no residence permit or a visa. She had to pay a fee for the issuing of the visa. Her requests for exemption from this fee were rejected. 37.  On 7 October 2003 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Blagoevgrad district police department (BDPD) under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (SMRDA). She sought damages stemming from certain omissions in connection to the issuing of her residence permits in the period between 2001 and 2003 and from the impediments she and the second applicant experienced upon their return to Bulgaria in August 2003. 38.  The case was examined by three levels of jurisdiction. 39.  By a final judgment of 13 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the claim, finding that although there had been certain delays in examining the first applicant’s requests for residence permits, these delays had not been excessive and she was partly responsible for them as she had failed to appear before the competent authorities when summoned and to pay the due fees. It further ordered the first applicant to pay BGN 318, approximately EUR 150 in court fees in accordance with the SMRDA. 40.  In 2005 and 2006 the first applicant, in her capacity of a shareholder in “Sil-Prim” OOD, which owned the conveyor belt line mentioned above, brought proceedings for damages against the BDPD under general tort law. She alleged that following the events of 24 May 2000 the police department had not taken appropriate measures to safeguard the belt line. 41.  Her request for court fee exemption was rejected on 22 August 2005 as she had not submitted any evidence for her income. It is not clear whether she eventually paid the court fees or was exempted. 42.  By judgments of 21 March and 13 November 2006 the Blagoevgrad Regional Court and the Sofia Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding that the first applicant had failed to prove that the conveyer belt line had been destroyed as a result of omissions of the officers form the BDPD. 43.  It appears that on 22 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld these judgments. 44.  On 29 October 2006 the first applicant initiated proceedings under the Consumers Protection Act, seeking damages from the inappropriate behaviour of a shop assistant in a shoe shop. She also requested to be exempted from the court fees but on 12 January 2007 her request was rejected by the Blagoevgrad Regional Court for failure to prove that she lacked sufficient means to pay the court fee. She appealed before the Supreme Court of Cassation. The course and the outcome of the proceedings thereafter are unknown.