6.  The applicants were born in 1918, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1939, 1943, 1950, 1949, 1955, 1965 and 1940 respectively. They all live in Ghaxaq except for the last applicant who lives in Mosta. 7.  The applicants are owners of two plots of land (“A and B”) in Ghaxaq, Malta. Plot A measures 71.5 sq.m and plot B measures 1,930.3 sq.m. 8.  By a Governor's declaration of 15 February 1974, the Government gave notice of expropriation of both plots of land. It was declared that the land was required for a public purpose and was to be acquired by outright sale. At the relevant time, this declaration did not transfer the ownership of the land to the Government. In particular, it was provided that the Commissioner of Lands should serve a copy of the Presidential Declaration on the owner of the land, together with a “notice to treat” informing him or her about the amount that the Commissioner was willing to pay. 9.  By a Notice to Treat of 19 November 1974 the applicants were offered the sum of 81 Maltese liras (MTL – approximately 189 euros (EUR)) for plot A and MTL 2,905 (approximately EUR 6,762) for plot B. Consequently, the procedure to compensate the applicant and to transfer the legal ownership of the land to the legal authority was initiated. 10.  The applicants refused the offer and on an unspecified date in 1990 proceedings were instituted before the Land Arbitration Board (“LAB”). On 13 October 1995 the LAB ordered the applicants to transfer the two plots of land to the Government by outright sale and established the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicants in the sum of MTL 277.75 (approximately EUR 647) for Plot A and MTL 7,099.94 (approximately EUR 16,512) for Plot B, in accordance with the appointed architects' evaluations according to domestic law. The applicants submitted that according to their architect's valuation dated January 1993 the land then was worth MTL 105,000 (approximately EUR 243,850). 11.  The applicants appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal, which on 30 May 1997 declared the appeal null and void as no appeal could be entered against the decision of the LAB. 12.  In the meantime, building permits had been issued by the administration in respect of all the entire area surrounding the plots of land at issue; however, the administration had not considered that Plots A and B could be used for building purposes. The applicants alleged that from 1974 to 1998 (the year when they instituted constitutional proceedings, see paragraph 13 below), Plots A and B had not been utilised for any public purpose. Plot A had been allocated to a private individual so that he could have a garage and a garden next to his residence and Plot B had remained unused until 1979, when a commemorative plaque was placed in a small area of the land. The remainder had not been utilised by the authorities for twenty-five years. 13.  On 18 May 1998 the applicants lodged an application with the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction claiming that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, in that the property expropriated had not been used for a public purpose and the amount determined by the LAB did not constitute adequate compensation for the taking of the property. They further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the Government, which alone had the possibility of initiating proceedings before the LAB in order to determine the amount of compensation due, had waited sixteen years before instituting these proceedings, in breach of the reasonable time principle. 14.  On 29 April 2005 the Civil Court dismissed their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. It held that, according to the evidence produced, the land at issue was used to form part of a road, more than 90% of it to make a public garden, and the rest for a bus shelter, a commemorative plaque, a niche and four garages. The garages were not situated wholly on the expropriated land and although they were used by private individuals they served the needs of the adjoining housing estate; the fourth garage contained an Enemalta (the only producer and distributor of electricity in Malta) generator. Thus, the expropriated land had been taken for a public purpose. In respect of the adequacy of the compensation the Civil Court held that the LAB had determined the amount awarded according to established objective criteria found in the law, which were not arbitrary or capricious. Where the amounts were fixed by reference to objective standards with the possibility for those deprived of the property to be represented in the procedure, it was not its duty to establish or revise the value so quantified. 15.  The Civil Court upheld, however, a violation of the reasonable time principle under Article 6 of the Convention, finding that there had been an excessive delay regarding the commencement of proceedings before the LAB and awarded the applicants jointly MTL 300 (approximately EUR 700). 16.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court. They claimed that the expropriation had not been effected in the public interest and that the court had mistaken the land at issue for another plot of land previously expropriated. They presented a number of documents in order to support their argument that a mistake had been made. The site plan exhibited by the applicants indicated the land which had been expropriated earlier (1969) and which had then been used to build a bypass, and the plots of land actually at issue. They further argued that the amount of compensation awarded was far below its market value. The applicants also requested the court to vary the amount of compensation awarded by the Civil Court for the acknowledged Article 6 violation. 17.  On 6 April 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. It upheld the first-instance court's reading of the exhibited cartographic and photographic evidence; it further maintained that even if the land had remained unused for a period of time this was normal in housing estate projects. Even if parts of the land had eventually been allotted to private individuals this did not render the taking of the property devoid of a public interest purpose. In respect of the amount of compensation, the Constitutional Court held that the estimates provided by the applicants were relatively recent and based on the current market value which was not always decisive according to the Strasbourg case-law, whereas the evaluation of the LAB referred to the real value of the land in 1974, the year when the land had been expropriated. Consequently this claim was manifestly ill-founded. As to the last claim, namely compensation for the length of proceedings, the Constitutional Court noted that, although it appeared that a request for a variation of the compensation awarded had been made in the appeal application, this had not been listed as a ground of appeal.Consequently, it could not take cognisance of the matter.