6.  The applicants are spouses. They were both born in 1947 and currently live in Belgrade. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  The applicants and a certain M.P. were co-owners of a house and five other buildings in Belgrade. 9.  On 21 May 1998 M.P. obtained a building permit for the partial reconstruction of the house co-owned by the applicants, authorising him to convert his flat into a duplex and enlarge it by approximately 100 meters squared. 10.  M.P. started with the construction work immediately thereafter. 11.  On 7 August 1998, on the basis of an on-site intervention, the Inspectorate of the Voždovac Municipality (“the Municipality”) concluded that M.P. was not performing the construction work in line with the building permit. It therefore ordered him to stop all work and to file a request for a new permit. 12.  On 2 September 1998 the Inspectorate ordered M.P. to demolish, within three days, that part of the construction which had been erected contrary to the building permit. 13.  On 11 September 1998 the Inspectorate issued an enforcement order in this respect. 14.  Meanwhile, M.P. filed a request for a new building permit. 15.  On 24 September 1998 the Municipality issued a favourable interim decision. 16.  On 15 December 1998 the second-instance authority quashed this decision, remitting the case for re-consideration. 17.  On 13 July 1999 the Municipality dismissed M.P.'s request for a new building permit, finding that his plan did not satisfy the requirements prescribed by the relevant domestic legislation. 18.  On the same date, a technical report noted that “following the recent precipitation” and the construction work undertaken by M.P. the applicants' property had been seriously damaged. In particular, mortar had fallen, walls had cracked, and extensive damp and leakages had appeared throughout the premises. 19.  On 27 March 2001 and 20 June 2002 the applicants filed criminal complaints against unidentified officials employed with the Municipality, alleging abuse of office. 20.  On 25 November 2003 this complaint was rejected by the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office (Peto opštinsko javno tužilaštvo) in Belgrade. 21.  Following the entry into force of the new Planning and Construction Act in May 2003, M.P filed a request with the Municipality for the “legalisation” of the reconstruction of his flat (see paragraphs 32-34 below). 22.  On 22 May 2003 and 11 June 2004 the applicants lodged submissions opposing the said legalisation. 23.  On 11 February 2005 the Municipality informed the applicants that M.P. had filed a request for legalisation. 24.  On 14 December 2005 M.P. supplemented this request. 25.  Over the years, the applicants had repeatedly requested enforcement of the demolition order dated 2 September 1998, but to no avail.