4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1937 respectively and live in Odessa. 5.  In 1994 and 1995 the applicants made contributions to “U.”, a trust fund (“the Trust Fund”), which invested them in the construction of apartments by “M.”, a construction company (“the Construction Company”), co-founded by the municipal authorities and other unspecified shareholders. Initially each applicant was assigned a specific apartment. However, subsequently the investment contract between the Trust Fund and the Construction Company was annulled and the latter entered into a contract with another company, following which those apartments had been reassigned to other persons. 6.  On 28 May 1996 and 10 June 1996 the first and the second applicant respectively brought actions against the Trust Fund and the Construction Company before the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (Суворовський районний суд м. Одесса) alleging breach of contracts. On 24 June 1996 these actions were joined. 7.  On 12 August 1996 the court found that the Trust Fund had complied with its obligations vis-à-vis the applicants. It further held that the Construction Company was in default, declared each of the applicants an owner of an apartment and awarded them default interest and non-pecuniary damages. On 21 August 1996 the court amended its judgment, having specified the concrete apartments to be assigned to the applicants. 8.  On 29 October 1996 the Odessa Regional Court (Одеський обласний суд)[1], following the Construction Company’s appeal, quashed the part of the judgment relating to the monetary award and remitted the respective claims for a fresh consideration. As regards the applicants’ entitlement to ownership of the apartments, the judgment was upheld and became final. 9.  On 5 February 1997 the Presidium of the Regional Court, following a protest (an extraordinary appeal) of its President, quashed the previous decisions to the extent that they upheld the applicants’ ownership and remitted these claims for a fresh consideration. On several occasions the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to have this decision repealed. In particular, they requested the Constitutional Court to interpret provisions of applicable legislation, this request having been rejected in November 2000. 10.  In the meantime, in March 1998 the Construction Company’s registration was annulled and its founders were obliged to carry out liquidation formalities. In May 2000 the Construction Company’s director, his deputy and the chief accountant were convicted of several criminal offences in connection with the company management. 11.  On 25 September 2001 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Ukraine against the decision of 5 February 1997 following the newly introduced cassation procedure. 12.  On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Court rejected their request for leave to appeal in cassation. 13.  Between April 2002 and April 2004 the proceedings were suspended on account of lack of information about the location of the defendant entities. 14.  Between 14 July and 29 November 2004 no hearings were scheduled on account of the second applicant’s illness. 15.  On 16 March 2005 the District Court decided to leave the applicants’ claims without consideration referring to their repeated failures to appear before the court. The applicants appealed. 16.  On 22 December 2005 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 March 2005 for want of evidence that the applicants had been duly notified about the hearings. 17.  On 27 July 2006 the proceedings were suspended on account of the second applicant’s illness. According to the applicants, no hearings were scheduled since that time and the proceedings are currently pending before the first-instance court. 18.  Between September 1997 and the present time the court scheduled the total of some forty hearings. Only some three of the hearings took place. The other hearings were adjourned predominantly on account of the absence of one or both of the defendants.