5.  The applicants, Mr Krzysztof Kamecki, Sławomir Kamecki and Irena Kamecka-Kossowska, were born in 1954, 1951 and 1949 respectively. The first applicant lives in Vienna, Austria, the second in Puławy, Poland, and the third in Kleve, Germany. 6.  The applicants own a plot of land and a house in Puławy, Poland. They have been involved in several sets of administrative proceedings relating to an apartment block constructed on a neighbouring plot of land. 7.  In the local development plan the plots of land in question were intended for construction of one-family houses, multi-family houses and for services and commercial purposes. In 1997 the Południe housing cooperative applied to change the local development plan in view of their intention to construct an apartment block. 8.  On 29 September 1997 the Puławy City Council (Rada Miasta) allowed the application and amended the local development plan deciding that the main purpose of the land would be housing. The applicants learned about the decision on an unspecified later date and complained about it to the Supreme Administrative Court. 9.  On 18 February 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the complaint and found that the impugned decision had been given in violation of the law as the applicants had not been informed about the proceedings. However, the court did not quash the decision as more than one year had elapsed and domestic law did not allow for it to be quashed after that period. 10.  On 16 December 1997 the Mayor of Puławy (Prezydent Miasta Puławy) granted planning permission (concerning the construction of the apartment block). 11.  The applicants appealed, but on 19 February 1998 the Lublin Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 12.  On 11 March 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the complaint and declared both decisions null and void (stwierdzenie nieważności). The court established that the local authorities “had violated the elementary rules of the Code of Administrative Proceedure”. In particular they had not notified the applicants about the proceedings as they had addressed all letters to their late mother, which had deprived each applicant of their right to participate in the proceedings as a party. 13.  On 13 January 1998 the President of the Południe housing cooperative applied for a building permit for construction of the apartment block. The L-shaped block would share a border with the applicants’ property on two sides. 14.  On 25 March 1998 the Mayor of Puławy (Prezydent Miasta Puławy) granted the application. The applicants appealed. 15.  On 14 May 1998 the Lubelski Governor (Wojewoda Lubelski) dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. 16.  Subsequently, as the Governor’s decision became final, the housing cooperative started construction of the apartment block. 17.  The applicants applied to stay the enforcement of the Lubelski Governor’s decision pending the examination of the complaint by the Supreme Administrative Court. However, on 14 August 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their application. 18.  On 19 June 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal, quashed both impugned decisions and remitted the case. The court established that the local authorities had given decisions while the proceedings challenging the local development plan were pending. 19.  The case was remitted to the local authorities. Subsequently, the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a decision ordering the demolition of the apartment block (see facts below). 20.  On 7 October 1999 the Mayor of Puławy gave a decision in which he again granted a building permit and allowed the completion of the construction of the apartment block. 21.  The applicants appealed. In their appeal they challenged, inter alia, the impartiality of the Mayor of Puławy submitting that he had a financial interest in the case. 22.  On 29 October 1999 the Lubelski Governor dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. 23.  On 10 December 1999 the apartment block in question was finished and the tenants moved in. 24.  On 19 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the complaint, quashed both impugned decisions and remitted the case. The court found that the decision given by the local authorities had been erroneous; nevertheless, since in the meantime the block had been finished the decisions on the merits were pointless and the proceedings should have been discontinued. 25.  On 11 September 2001 the Mayor of Puławy decided to discontinue the proceedings. On 7 November 2001 the Lublin Governor upheld the decision. 26.  The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 4 July 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions and remitted the case. It found that the decisions had been given in violation of the law as the local authorities had failed to examine the applicants’ reasoned submissions that the Mayor of Puławy should be excluded from the examination of the case. 27.  Subsequently, on 30 December 2003, the Lubelski Governor decided that “taking into account the authority’s concern to maintain objectiveness and impartiality,” the Mayor of Puławy should be excluded from the examination of the case. 28.  On 9 February 2004 the Mayor of the District (Starosta Powiatowy) discontinued the proceedings. The applicants lodged an appeal. 29.  On 19 April 2004 the Lubelski Governor upheld the impugned decision to discontinue the proceedings. 30.  The decision was upheld on 28 October 2004 by the Regional Administrative Court. The second applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court complaining that not all the applicants had been informed about the proceedings. 31.  On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment and both preceding decisions and remitted the case. It found that the administrative authority had failed to summon the third applicant. Nevertheless, the court underlined that the proceedings should be discontinued because the construction works had been completed. 32.  On 30 March 2006 the Mayor of the District discontinued the proceedings. 33.  On 18 September 2006 the Lubelski Governor upheld the decision. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Regional Administrative Court. 34.  On 18 September 2007 the Lublin Regional Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. The first applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 35.  On 27 February 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their cassation appeal and finally discontinued the proceedings. 36.  In 1999 the applicants requested the District Building Inspector (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) to stop the construction and to demolish the apartment block. Their application was dismissed on 19 June 2001 by the Supreme Administrative Court. The court found that the block had been built on the basis of final building permits and thus it could not be considered illegal although the permits themselves had been retrospectively quashed. 37.  On 23 February 2004 the applicants requested the District Building Inspector to order the cooperative to carry out certain works so the apartment block would comply with legal requirements. The case was examined by various administrative authorities who dismissed the applicants’ allegations finding that the building complied with the relevant standards. In the most recent decision, given by the District Building Inspector on 4 April 2007, the applicants were informed that no shortcomings regarding the construction of the block had been established. If the construction had caused negative consequences for the applicants, they should seek damages and compensation by lodging a civil action. Only the civil courts, and not the administrative authorities, were competent to deal with a claim for damages.