4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1949 respectively and live in Warszawa. 5.  On 25 October 1993 the applicants lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a statement of claim for payment. 6.  On 9 March 1995 the court gave a judgment in absentia, in favour of the applicants. The applicants asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings. 7.  On 16 May 1995 the applicants were ordered to pay court fees. 8.  On 3 April 1996 the court granted the defendant retrospective leave to appeal and ordered the enforcement proceedings to be adjourned. 9.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings the applicants asked to be exempted from court fees. By a decision of the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) given on 1 April 1997 they were exempted from court fees. 10.  On 9 April 1997 the court decided to stay the proceedings following the death of the defendant. The proceedings were resumed on 27 September 2002. 11.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 21 May 2003. 12.  On 16 October 2003 the court gave judgment in absentia in favour of the applicants. The enforcement proceedings are pending. 13.  On 12 November 1993 the applicants sued M.L. and L.F. before the Warsaw District Court. They sought payment. 14.  On 25 February 1994 the court found that it lacked competence to deal with the case and referred it to the Szczecin Regional Court. 15.  On 9 March 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a partial judgment in absentia in favour of the applicants as regards the claim against L.F. 16.  On 21 June 1995 the court gave the final judgment in absentia. 17.  On 28 September 1995 the court rejected the interlocutory appeal lodged by M.L. On 29 April 1997 it granted L.F. retrospective leave to appeal. 18.  In a letter of 9 March 1998 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości) about the delay in the proceedings. 19.  On 18 May 1998 the President of the Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego) acknowledged the delay and informed them that he had ordered the court to proceed speedily with the proceedings. 20.  On 23 August 1998 L.F. died. His heirs, T.I. and J.Ł. replaced L.F. as the defendant in the proceedings. 21.  On 9 November 2001, 19 February and 3 October 2003 the court held hearings. 22.  On 19 November 2003 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) and the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings and violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. 23.  On 22 December 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court quashed the partial judgment of 9 March 1995 and dismissed the applicants’ claim. The applicants appealed. 24.  The hearing scheduled for 19 October 2004 was adjourned. 25.  On 11 October 2005 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first instance judgment. 26.  On 29 November 2005 the Poznań Regional Court officially appointed a lawyer who was supposed to lodge a cassation appeal on the applicants’ behalf. On 12 December 2005 the applicants indicated that they wished to renounce free legal assistance. 27.  On 30 January 2006 they asked the Ombudsman to lodge a cassation appeal on their behalf. On 1 September 2006 the Ombudsman refused the applicants’ request. 28.  On 18 March 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 29.  The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings in the present case had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction. 30.  On 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed their complaint, considering that it was called upon to examine only the conduct of the immediately inferior court. Consequently, the Supreme Court took into consideration the period between the date when the case had been allocated to the Poznań Court of Appeal and the date on which the complaint had been lodged (between 19 October 2004 and 18 March 2005). It found that during the relevant part of the proceedings, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the domestic court. 31.  On 16 February 1993 the applicants lodged a claim for payment against the State Treasury with the Szczecin Regional Court. 32.  On 23 August 1993 the applicants complained to the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings and they requested the court to accelerate the proceedings. Following their complaint, a hearing was scheduled for 3 December 1993. 33.  On 15 November 1996 a hearing was held. 34.  On 24 March 1997 the proceedings were stayed due to events beyond the court’s control: criminal proceedings against employees of the District Court were pending and their result was relevant for the proceedings in question. 35.  On 28 September 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings. The applicants appealed. 36.  On 16 April 2003 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 28 September 2001, finding that the court was obliged to resume the proceedings ex officio. 37.  On 26 September 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court resumed the proceedings. 38.  On 3 February 2004 a hearing was held. 39.  On 16 February 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court gave judgment. 40.  On 5 October 2004 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. 41.  On 14 October 2005 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it did not raise any issue of general importance. 42.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants complained several times to the Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice, the President of the District Court and the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. 43.  On 15 March 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act with the Supreme Court. The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings in the present case had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction. 44.  On 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed their complaint, considering that it was called upon to examine only the conduct of the immediately inferior court. The Supreme Court found that between 13 April 2004 and 18 March 2005, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the Poznań Court of Appeal.