5.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1961 respectively. They are farmers residing at Ginsenberg, Styria. 6.  On 8 June 1972 the Graz District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde, "the District Authority") opened the Mooskirchen land consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) which also concerned the applicants’ land. 7.  On 16 November 1984 the District Authority adopted the consolidation scheme (Zusammenlegungsplan) and on 10 December 1984 the parties to the proceedings were notified. 8.  Subsequently, on 20 December 1984 K. and A., the applicants’ predecessors (the first applicant’s parents), lodged an appeal, alleging that they had not been duly compensated. 9.  On 19 September 1990 the Regional Agricultural Panel (Landes-agrarsenat) dismissed their appeal as unfounded. By decision of 25 February 1991 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case for lack of prospect of success and upon the applicants’ predecessors’ request remitted the case to the Administrative Court. 10.  Thereupon K. and A. lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court, which, on 21 September 1995, quashed the decision of 19 September 1990 for failure to comply with procedural rules and remitted the case back to the Regional Agricultural Panel. 11.  Since the Regional Agricultural Panel failed to decide within a reasonable time K. and the first applicant on 12 January 1998 lodged a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag). 12.  On 1 April 1998 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) granted the request and assumed competence. By decision of 3 May 2000 it granted the appeal of 20 December 1984 and remitted the case to the District Authority. 13.  As the District Authority failed to take a decision within the statutory period of six months, K. and the two applicants on 16 January 2001 lodged another request for the transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag). 14.  Having granted the request the Regional Agricultural Panel issued a new consolidation scheme on 26 September 2001. Subsequently the applicants lodged another appeal. 15.  On 4 December 2002 the Supreme Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Hence the applicants, on 29 January 2003, lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. 16.  On 30 September 2004 the Constitutional Court dealt with the applicants’ complaint. It found that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time and that this constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in this respect. However, it held also that for this reason alone it could not quash the impugned decision and dismissed the complaint. Upon the applicants’ request it referred the case to the Administrative Court. 17.  On 24 February 2005 the Administrative Court, upholding the lower-instance decisions, dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It found that the consolidation proceedings were in conformity with the regulations as set out under the consolidation scheme and that the applicants had been duly compensated. As regards plot no. 278a which had initially been of inferior value it noted that in the meantime measures for improving its value by constructing an appropriate drainage system had been adopted. The decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on 18 March 2005. 18.  On 8 May 2006 the applicants lodged public liability proceedings with a view to receiving reimbursement of the remaining difference between the compensation which had been granted by the Supreme Land Reform Board on 3 May 2005 and the amount claimed by them. According to the applicants’ allegations the proceedings are still pending before the Graz Regional Court. 19.  In a different set of proceedings, on 8 January 2003 the applicants lodged a request for compensation under Section 27 § 9 of the Land Consolidation Act (Zusammenlegungsgesetz). They claimed loss of profits because for a period of some twenty-five years, the time of the provisional transfer of land, they had to cultivate land, in particular plot no. 278a, which was of inferior value and yielded less than their original plots. 20.  On 25 May 2005 the Regional Agricultural Panel granted the applicants 4,282 Euros (EUR), rejecting any further requests. It found that it could not grant compensation for the period before the entering into force of Section 27 § 9 of the Land Consolidation Act in 1995. Thereupon the applicants appealed. On 7 December 2005 the Supreme Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants’ appeal. 21.  On 1 March 2007 the Constitutional Court quashed the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decision and referred the case to the subordinate authorities. It found that from the object and purpose of the amendment of the Land Consolidation Act of 1995 it was evident that this amendment should also extend to compensation claims concerning losses incurred in years before that act had entered into force. 22.  On 18 June 2007 the Supreme Land Reform Board partly granted the applicants’ appeal and awarded them EUR 21,719.17.