4.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1938 respectively and live in Wrocław, Poland. 5.  On 22 June 1992 the applicants sued the “Wrocławskie Przedsiębiorstwo Robót Inżynieryjnych Budownictwa Przemysłowego nr 2” (“the defendant company”) before the Wrocław Regional Court, seeking remuneration for the defendant company’s use of an industrial invention of which they were the authors. 6.  The Regional Court held 3 hearings on the following dates: 21 December 1992; 1 February and 2 April 1993. 7.  The Wrocław Regional Court held 11 hearings on the following dates: 3 November and 22 December 1993; 29 January 1994; 20 February, 27 July and 23 November 1995; 30 January, 27 February, 10 July and 11 September 1997, and 21 December 1998. 8.  In the course of the proceedings the Regional Court obtained five expert reports. It appears that two other experts (K.N. and R.B.) returned the case file after 5 months without having prepared a report as ordered by the court. 9.  The applicant repeatedly complained to the President of the Regional Court and the Wrocław Court of Appeal about delays in the proceedings. On 6 February 1998 the President of the Regional Court and on 27 October 1998 the President of the Court of Appeal acknowledged that there had been delays. 10.  On 30 June 1998 the applicants and the defendant company concluded an out-of-court settlement in respect of a minor part of the applicants’ claims. 11.  On 21 December 1998 the Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicants’ claims and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claims which had been the subject of the settlement. The applicants appealed against that judgment. 12.  On 9 April 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal held a hearing. On the same day it quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case. 13.  The Regional Court held 6 hearings on the following dates: 22 September, 13 October and 9 November 1999; 7 and 22 April and 1 December 2000. It obtained 3 additional expert reports. 14.  On 15 December 2000 the Regional Court gave judgment. It allowed the applicants’ claims in part. The defendant company appealed against that judgment. However, on 25 June 2001 it withdrew its appeal. Consequently, on 27 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal discontinued the appeal proceedings. 15.  On 12 July 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal issued an enforcement order in favour of the applicants in respect of the judgment of the Regional Court of 15 December 2000. 16.  On 22 November 2001 the defendant was declared insolvent. 17.  On 10 November 2004 the applicants sued the State Treasury before the Wrocław Regional Court, seeking compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings referred to above. 18.  On 10 February 2005 the first applicant (Mr Daniel Nowak) withdrew his claim. Consequently, on 28 February 2005 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant. 19.  On 29 September 2005 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the second applicant’s claim. It found that he had failed to establish the State Treasury’s liability for damage caused by the excessive length of the proceedings. The second applicant (Mr Bogusław Zajączkowski) appealed. The appeal proceedings are pending.