4.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1934 respectively and live in Katowice. 5.  The applicants’ father owned a plot of land with a surface area of 1,035 square metres, situated in Warsaw, in Grabowa Street. 6.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (Dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze miasta stołecznego Warszawy) (“the 1945 Decree”), the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw. 7.  On 14 February 1949 the applicants’ father filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land, pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1949 application”). 8.  On 28 July 1983 the Head of the Warszawa-Wola District Office (Naczelnik Dzielnicy Warszawa-Wola) refused his application (“the 1983 decision”). 9.  In the meantime, the Law of 20 March 1950 on the Local State Administration entered into force on 13 April 1950, according to which the ownership of all property previously held by the local government was transferred to the State. By virtue of certain decisions of 12 January 1976 and 11 June 1982, the property in question had been designated for construction of an underground. 10.  By a decision of 25 January 1984, given on behalf of the Mayor of Warsaw (Prezydent Warszawy), the applicants’ father was granted compensation for the property and subsequently it was paid to him. 11.  On the applicants’ father’s death, the applicants’ status as heirs was confirmed by the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on 24 November 1989. 12.  Following the re-establishment of the local government in Poland in the 1990s, the ownership of the plot was transferred to the City of Warsaw. The above was confirmed by decisions of the Warsaw Governor (Wojewoda Warszawski) given on 2 February 1992 and 31 May 2000. 13.  On 23 March 1998 the applicants instituted administrative proceedings before the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) and applied for the annulment of the 1983 decision. 14.  On 9 October 2000 the applicants filed complaints, alleging inactivity on the part of the first-instance authority. 15.  In the meantime, the case file circulated among the Warsaw Government Board of Appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) and the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office (Mazowiecki Urząd Wojewódzki). However, no decision was taken in the applicants’ case. 16.  On 20 July 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) dismissed their complaint of 9 October 2000 about the inactivity of the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal. 17.  On 22 May 2002 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal gave a decision declaring the 1983 decision null and void. 18.  On an unspecified date an appeal against the decision of 22 May 2002 was lodged by the Board of the City of Warsaw (Zarząd Miasta Warszawy). 19.  On 3 December 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, complaining of the inactivity of the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal. 20.  On 18 March 2003 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal gave a decision and discontinued the appellate proceedings. It was found out that the City of Warsaw was not a party to the proceedings. As a consequence of that decision, the 1949 application had still to be examined. 21.  By a letter of 26 May 2003 the applicants withdrew their complaint about the inactivity of the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal, which had been lodged on 3 December 2002. 22.  On 8 December 2003 the Mayor of Warsaw, after examination of the 1949 application, decided to discontinue the proceedings. He considered that they had become devoid of purpose. He observed that by virtue of another decision given on 25 January 1984 on behalf of the Mayor of Warsaw, the applicants’ father had been granted and paid compensation for the property. He underlined that the 1945 Decree had provided either for the grant of the right of perpetual use (which replaced the former temporary ownership), or for the payment of compensation. As such had been paid to the applicants’ father, their claims in this respect had already been satisfied. 23.  The applicants contested that decision on 23 December 2003. They alleged, in particular, that the amount of the compensation paid in the 1980s had been disproportionately low in comparison with the market value of the property. 24.  On 13 February 2004 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 25.  On 12 November 2004 and 25 April 2005, the applicants’ lawyer wrote a letter to the Office of the City of Warsaw (Urząd Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy), inquiring about the progress in the proceedings following the decision of the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal. He underlined that since the remittal of the case no action had been taken by the first-instance authority. 26.  On 19 October 2004 the applicants’ lawyer lodged with the Office of the City of Warsaw a complaint about the inactivity of the first-instance authority, to no avail. 27.  Further complaints in this respect were lodged with the Board of the City of Warsaw (Rada Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy) on 7 July and the Mazowiecki Governor on 4 November 2005. 28.  On 18 November 2005 the Mazowiecki Governor transferred the applicants’ complaint of 4 November to the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal. On the same date he instructed the Board of the City of Warsaw to examine the applicants’ inactivity complaint of 7 July. 29.  On 30 November 2005 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal instructed the Mayor of Warsaw to give explanations for his excessive delay in delivery of the first-instance decision. As no answer was given, on 30 January 2006 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal renewed its request. 30.  On 13 February 2006 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal ordered the Mayor of Warsaw to examine the applicants’ case by no later than 30 June 2006. At the same time it confirmed that the Mayor of Warsaw had breached the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure laying down time-limits for dealing with a case. It also reprimanded him for the failure to notify the applicants about the delay in the proceedings and the extension of the statutory time-limit for dealing with their case. 31.  As no decision was given, on 21 July 2006 the applicants’ lawyer filed with the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of Warsaw. Subsequently he asked the Mayor of Warsaw to institute disciplinary proceedings against those responsible for the delay in examination of the applicants’ case. 32.  On 9 August 2006 the Mayor of Warsaw issued his decision in the case. He refused the application, observing that the property in question constituted part of a bigger plot of 11,434 square meters. He found that the plot in question had been designated partly for local housing and service facilities. He stated that on part of the property underground facilities had already been developed. Lastly, the Mayor considered that it was not feasible to detach from the existing larger plot the part which had been owned by the applicants’ father. 33.  On 24 August 2006, the applicants’ lawyer appealed against the decision of the Mayor of Warsaw to the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal. 34.  On 1 February 2007 the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the inactivity complaint lodged on 21 July 2006. It doing so, it relied on the fact that on 9 August 2006 the Mayor of Warsaw had given the decision as to the merits. A cassation appeal against that decision was lodged on 28 March 2007. 35.  On 21 May 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeal. 36.  The proceedings in the applicants’ case are pending.