4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1928 and 1938 respectively and live in Bratislava. 5.  On 6 January 1992 the applicants' mother filed an action with the Bratislava I District Court. She claimed restitution of real property. 6.  On 5 April 1994 the applicants' representative informed the District Court of their mother's death. He also submitted a confirmation from the public notary stating that the applicants were legal heirs of the deceased. 7.  On 14 April 1994 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings. On 29 July 1994 the applicants' representative informed the District Court of the outcome of the inheritance proceedings and requested that the first-instance court should proceed with the case. 8.  On 14 November 1994 the District Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of other related inheritance proceedings. In July 2001 the District Court was informed about the outcome of the latter inheritance proceedings. 9.  On 4 October 2005 the Bratislava I District Court allowed the applicants' claim. The judgment was served on Mr Pavel Kučera on 22 December 2005. 10.  On 4 and 26 January 2006 the applicants' lawyer complained that the judgment had not been served on him and the other applicant. 11.  On 4 January 2006 the defendant appealed. 12.  On 9 January 2006 the District Court transmitted the case to the Regional Court in Bratislava. On 17 March 2006 the court of appeal sent the case back to the District Court as its judgment had not been duly served on the applicants' representative. The latter received the judgment on 27 March 2006. 13.  On 3 May 2006 the District Court sent the case to the court of appeal. On 31 July 2006 the latter again returned the case to the District Court for rectification of a mistake in the judgment of 4 October 2005. 14.  On 24 October 2006 the District Court rectified its judgment. On 4 December 2006 the case was transmitted to the Regional Court. 15.  On 31 October 2007 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 4 October 2005 and remitted the file to the District Court. 16.  On 21 February 2008 the District Court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed. On 19 November 2008 the Regional Court remitted the file to the District Court ordering the latter to obtain another expert opinion. 17.  On 6 May 2009 the District Court appointed an expert and ordered the elaboration of an expert opinion. On 31 July 2009 the District Court urged the submission of the expert opinion. The proceedings are pending. 18. On 1 April 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In its view, the factual complexity of the case did not justify the overall length of the proceedings. No delays could be imputed to the applicants' conduct. The proceedings had been pending for 12 years without a decision on the merits. That was due to the conduct of the District Court which had failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner. The Constitutional Court observed that the District Court could have proceeded with the case after it had been informed about new parties to the proceedings on 5 December 1994. It further stated that the applicants had a right to a hearing within a reasonable time also when the proceedings had been stayed. 19.  The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 2,492 euros to each of the applicants as just satisfaction. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants' costs incurred in the constitutional proceedings.