4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in the village of Stryama. 5.  On different dates in 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and four other persons. The applicants were charged with the theft of a car tyre. An indictment against them was introduced at court on 29 June 1992. 6.  On 3 December 1992 the Plovdiv Regional Court remitted the case to the investigation authorities finding that there had been procedural violations. 7.  No investigative measures were taken until September 1998 when one of the accused was questioned. In the following months the remaining accused were also questioned and other evidence was collected. 8.  On several occasions during these months a prosecutor from the Plovdiv regional prosecutor’s office instructed the investigation authorities to take further investigative measures and make up for certain earlier breaches of the procedural rules. 9.  On an unspecified date towards the end of 1999 the investigation was completed. The prosecution filed an indictment with the Plovdiv Regional Court and the applicants were brought to trial. 10.  In a judgment of 24 June 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicants. One of the remaining accused was also acquitted and the others were convicted and received suspended sentences. 11.  Upon appeal by the prosecution, on 8 October 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld fully the Regional Court’s judgment. In affirming the suspended sentences of three of the accused, it referred, inter alia, to the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that
“the criminal proceedings [had been] subject to excessive delays without there having been an objective justification for that delay ”. 12.  Upon cassation appeal by the prosecution, on 1 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ judgments and reiterated the Court of Appeal’s findings in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.