4.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1939 and 1936 and live in Pisarovina and Korčula, respectively. 5.  On 5 September 1974 the applicants brought a civil action against a certain J.P. and the Town of Korčula in the Korčula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Korčuli) seeking to be declared owners of a plot of land on which a stone-pit has been located. 6.  Following a remittal, on 5 September 1994 the Korčula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Korčuli) decided to close the main hearing. 7.  Afterwards, the applicants urged the Municipal Court several times to deliver the judgment, and filed several complaints with the Ministry of Justice. 8.  On 10 April 2002 the court sent its judgment dated 5 September 1994 to the parties. The applicants, who were declared to be the owners of a part of the disputed land, received the judgment eight days later. The respondents appealed. 9.  Meanwhile, on 19 March 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) found a violation of their constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded them each 8,100 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Dubrovnik County Court to give a decision on the appeal in the shortest time possible but no later than six months following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 20 July 2004. 10.  On 7 October 2004 the Dubrovnik County Court (Županijski sud u Dubrovniku) accepted the appeal of the respondents, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 11.  The proceedings are currently again pending before the Korčula Municipal Court as the first-instance court. 12.  On 14 June 1995 the Ministry of Economy (Ministarstvo gospodarstva) concluded an agreement with the company B.M. (“the company”) granting it a concession for exploitation of minerals and stone on the land in the above dispute (“the concession agreement”). 13.  On 16 April 1997 the competent administrative authority granted the company a permit (lokacijska dozvola) for the planned exploitation. 14.  In November 2001 the company started works on the property. 15.  On 21 June 2002 the applicants brought an administrative action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the concession agreement and the obtained permit. They also requested that the works be stopped pending the civil proceedings determining ownership of the property. 16.  On 26 June 2002 the Administrative Court invited the applicants to specify the decisions they were challenging and to submit their copies. 17.  On 1 August 2002 the applicants completed their action by specifying the impugned decisions but failed to submit their copies. 18.  On 20 November 2002 the Administrative Court declared the applicants' action inadmissible, finding that they had failed to complete their action as requested on 26 June 2002. 19.  After the beginning of the exploitation works, on 21 November 2001 the second applicant brought an action in trespass (actio negatoria) in the Korčula Municipal Court against J.P. as the shareholder of the company B.M., the town of Korčula and the State. He also applied for an interim measure (privremena mjera) to halt the exploitation works. 20.  On 2 June 2004 the Municipal Court dismissed the second applicant's claim as well as his application for an interim measure. It found that he had proved neither his ownership of the land at issue nor the unlawfulness of the exploitation works. 21.  On 9 December 2005 the Dubrovnik County Court dismissed the second applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 22.  On 8 March 2006 the second applicant lodged a regular constitutional complaint under section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act against the second-instance judgment. The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court. 23.  Meanwhile, on 30 July 2004 the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 27 April 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint finding that the length of the proceedings had not been excessive.