4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1927, respectively, and live in Lublin, Poland. 5.  On 21 May 1993 the applicants' neighbours were granted a permission to construct a shop on the ground floor of their house. The applicants appealed but the decision was upheld on 19 July 1993. 6.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicants applied to have the decision declared null and void. They submitted that the decision had been issued in violation of the local zoning plan and that the shop had been causing them nuisance. 7.  On 11 April 1994 the Minister of Planning (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) dismissed their application. The applicants appealed. 8.  On 22 February 1995 the Chief Building Inspector (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned decision. 9.  The Chief Building Inspector informed the applicants in his letters of 30 December 1995, 30 January, 28 February and 26 March 1996 that the proceedings could not be terminated yet and that he had fixed new time-limits. The Inspector explained that the main reason for the delay had been the necessity to obtain an expert opinion, which had been ultimately submitted on 9 April 1996. 10.  On 18 April 1996 the Chief Building Inspector refused to annul the decision of 21 May 1993. The Inspector informed the applicants that the decision was final and that they could lodge a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 11.  On 4 June 1996 the first applicant lodged a complaint against the decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. 12.  On 23 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing and rejected the applicant's complaint as it had been lodged in breach of procedural requirements. The court established that the applicant should have first lodged an appeal with the Chief Building Inspector asking him to reconsider the case. The court further advised the applicant that since the procedural mistake had occurred due to his being wrongly advised by the Inspector in the decision of 18 April 1996, he could apply for leave to appeal out of time. 13.  On 25 May 1998 the first applicant appealed to the Inspector to reconsider the case and applied for leave to lodge an appeal out of time. 14.  On 4 June 1998 the Chief Building Inspector granted leave to appeal out of time, examined the appeal, and upheld his decision of 18 April 1996. 15.  On 30 September 1998 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 4 June 1998. 16.  On 5 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint.