4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1968 respectively and live in Saint‑Petersburg. 5.  The applicants invested money in the construction of a block of flats. The contractors failed to provide the applicants with a flat in time. 6.  On 26 August 1996 the applicants brought an action against the contractors before the Primorskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg (“the district court”). 7.  The district court initiated proceedings in the case on 6 December 1996, after the applicants had paid a court fee. 8.  On 10 February 1998 the district court refused to entertain the application because of the applicants' alleged failure to attend hearings. This decision was not served on the applicants. 9.  On 23 June 1998 the applicants, who claimed that they had never been summoned, appealed and asked for the restoration of the relevant time limit. 10.  On 26 November 1998 the Saint-Petersburg City Court quashed the district court's decision of 10 February 1998 as unlawful in view of the lack of evidence that the applicants had ever been summoned to the hearings. It ordered the district court to examine the case. 11.  On 31 December 1998 the district court scheduled a hearing for 31 March 1999. 12.  The hearing was adjourned on 31 March 1999 to 8 July 1999 and on 8 July 1999 to 8 December 1999 on the ground of the defendants' failure to appear. 13.  On 8 December 1999 the hearing was adjourned to 3 May 2000 as the judge was ill. 14.  On 3 May 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 30 November 2000 because of the failure of the defendants to appear. 15.  During 1999‑2000 the applicants filed a number of complaints with the district court, the Saint-Petersburg City Court and the Supreme Court requesting the acceleration of the examination of their case. 16.  On 30 November 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 9 March 2001 as the judge was ill. 17.  Between 9 March 2001 and 31 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned twice at the request of both parties. 18.  On 31 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned to 11 February 2002 because the defendant failed to appear. 19.  On 11 April 2002 the district court examined the case and rejected the applicants' claim for a flat on the ground that all the flats in the block in question had already been distributed among other investors. The court noted that as regards the investments made, the applicants' interests were protected in the framework of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against the contractors. 20.  On 15 April 2002 the applicants appealed. 21.  On 14 November 2002 the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment.