5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The first applicant is a child born out of wedlock in 1999. 7.  On 9 June 1999 the first applicant and her mother (“the second applicant”) filed a civil suit against D.K. (“the respondent”), a very popular local singer, before the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade (“the Municipal Court”) in order to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance. 8.  Between 20 September 1999 and 22 January 2002, nine hearings were scheduled, five of which were held and another four adjourned. During that time, though duly summoned, the respondent failed to appear in court on at least two occasions. 9.  On 5 November 1999 and in compliance with an order issued by the Municipal Court, the Blood Transfusion Institute conducted blood tests, having taken samples provided by the three parties, and found that the probability that the respondent was the father of the first applicant was 97.14% and, as such, “highly likely”. 10.  From 10 January 2001 to 12 February 2002, on six separate occasions, DNA testing was attempted but each time, unlike the applicants, the respondent, though duly summoned, failed to appear at the clinic where the appointment was scheduled. 11.  On 26 February 2002 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it established the respondent's paternity, partly granted the child maintenance requested and issued an interim maintenance order. In its reasoning, inter alia, the court relied on the findings of the Blood Transfusion Institute, as well as the respondent's failure to appear at the clinic in order to undergo a DNA test. Finally, it noted that the relevant legislation did not provide for a possibility to subject the respondent to a DNA test against his will and held that there was no evidence that would have justified the rejection of the applicants' claims. 12.  On 22 October 2002 the Municipal Court adopted a supplementary judgment, granting the applicants' request for statutory interest. 13.  On 12 August 2002 the respondent filed an appeal with the District Court in Belgrade (“the District Court”). 14.  On 19 November 2002 the District Court quashed the judgments of the Municipal Court and remitted the case for a retrial. In its reasons, inter alia, it stated that the respondent had apparently been unable to attend the scheduled DNA tests but that he would now be willing to do so. The court added that the facts of the case concerning child maintenance also required further clarification. 15.  From 12 February 2003 to 26 November 2003, another six hearings were scheduled before the Municipal Court, five of which were adjourned and only one held. During that time, though duly summoned, the respondent failed to appear in court on at least three occasions. 16.  From 8 May 2003 to 22 July 2003, on three separate days, DNA testing was attempted but each time, unlike the applicants, the respondent, though twice duly summoned, failed to appear at the clinic where the appointment was scheduled. 17.  On 26 September 2003 the applicants complained about the delay to the Ministry of Justice. 18.  On 27 October 2003 the President of the Municipal Court informed the applicants that he had instructed the presiding judge in their case to proceed expeditiously. 19.  On 26 November 2003 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it established the respondent's paternity, partly granted the child maintenance requested and issued an interim maintenance order. The reasons offered, for the most part, were identical to those contained in its prior ruling. 20.  On 11 March 2004 the Municipal Court issued a decision correcting an obvious error contained in its judgment. 21.  On 19 April 2004 the respondent filed an appeal with the District Court. 22.  On 26 May 2004 the District Court again quashed the decisions of the Municipal Court and remitted the case for a retrial. In its reasoning it held that the civil parties needed to be heard again, that the actual moment of conception of the first applicant needed to be determined precisely in order to find out whether the second applicant had sexual relations with the respondent at that particular time, and that the DNA test needed to be attempted yet again. The court further explained that, should the respondent again fail to be tested, the Municipal Court would need to address the Blood Transfusion Institute in order to find out whether the fact that the first applicant was less than one year old when she was last tested (in 1999) meant that a new blood test might now be warranted. If so, following a new blood test and even in the absence of a DNA test, a new judgment should be rendered, due consideration being given to the respondent's refusal to submit to a DNA test. The court concluded by stating that the facts of the case concerning child maintenance also required additional clarification. 23.  The actual case file was not physically returned to the Municipal Court until 15 October 2004. 24.  The first hearing thereafter was initially scheduled for 24 February 2005. In January 2005, however, this hearing was cancelled by the Municipal Court itself, apparently without any reasons being specified. 25.  On 12 April 2005 the Municipal Court decided to request an expert medical opinion in line with the directions given by the District Court. 26.  On 28 April 2005 the same court heard the second applicant as well as the respondent. In his statement, inter alia, the respondent denied being the biological father of the first applicant and expressly said that he would not accept being subjected to a DNA test. 27.  On 5 July 2005 the Municipal Court appointed a medical expert and requested an opinion in line with its decision of 12 April 2005. 28.  On 2 October 2005 the medical expert invited the parties in the case to attend a meeting scheduled for 7 October 2005. On the said date, the applicants appeared but not the respondent. 29.  On 23 November 2005 the medical expert provided his opinion. 30.  On 10 March 2006, following the appointment of a new presiding judge in the case, the Municipal Court relieved the second applicant of her obligation to pay for the costs of the proceedings at issue. It stated, inter alia, that she was unemployed and unable to cover these costs without endangering the most basic needs of the first applicant. 31.  On 28 March 2006 the Municipal Court, inter alia, heard the parties to the proceedings, ordered them to provide the court with the relevant information concerning the maintenance sought and informed them that the DNA test was to be carried out on 3 April 2006 and 18 April 2006, respectively. 32.  Both applicants duly appeared on those dates but the respondent did not. 33.  On 11 May 2006 the applicants submitted the maintenance-related information requested. The respondent apparently failed to do so. 34.  On 12 May 2006 the Municipal Court adjourned the hearing which had been scheduled because it did not have all of the maintenance-related information at its disposal and a forensic expert, who had not been duly summoned, had failed to appear. 35.  On 24 May 2006, the Municipal Court accepted the applicants' motion to obtain additional maintenance-related information. 36.  On 16 June 2006 the Municipal Court adjourned the hearing scheduled for that day because the forensic expert in question had been “unavailable”. 37.  At the hearing held on 20 July 2006 the Municipal Court finally heard this expert. 38.  On 28 July 2006 the Municipal Court issued a judgement finding that the respondent was indeed the first applicant's natural father and, as such, obliged to pay 32,000 Serbian dinars (“RSD”), approximately 400 euros (“EUR”), monthly for her maintenance, as of 1 July 1999, together with the legal costs and the applicable statutory interest. In its reasoning, based on the relevant provisions of the Family Act 2005, as well as bearing in mind the views expressed by the District Court in its decision of 26 May 2004, the Municipal Court, inter alia, attached particular weight to the fact that the respondent had refused to be subjected to a DNA test, as the single most reliable way of confirming or refuting his paternity. Finally, the court noted that the second applicant was unemployed and indigent, which is why the respondent was ordered to pay the said child maintenance. The applicants were served with this judgment on 24 August 2006. 39.  In September 2006 the respondent filed an appeal with the District Court in Belgrade. 40.  On 25 December 2006 the District Court, relying on the Family Act 2005, upheld the impugned judgment but reduced the costs awarded to the applicants. 41.  On 14 March 2007 the respondent filed an appeal on points of law (revizija). On 9 May 2007 the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts' judgments as regards the respondent's paternity and upheld the maintenance ordered in the amount of RSD 15,000 monthly (approximately EUR 190). At the same time, however, it quashed the said judgments in respect of the remainder of the maintenance awarded, as well as the costs, and ordered that these two issues be re-examined by the Municipal Court. 42.  In 2000 the first applicant was diagnosed with asthma. 43.  On 21 October 2005 the National Employment Agency confirmed that the second applicant was unemployed and secured her an internship at the Agricultural Faculty in Belgrade. The Agency also accepted to pay the second applicant a total of RSD 6,100 per month (approximately EUR 76) for the next six months. 44.  The applicants further referred to numerous reports in the Serbian media concerning the above proceedings, as well as their own and the respondent's personal circumstances. Finally, the second applicant stated that the respondent, through his connections, made sure that she could not find work as a songwriter even though she had been successful in this field previously.