5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Podgorica. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 19 May 1995 the Public Construction Fund based in Podgorica (“the PCFP”) requested the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to the applicants in order to build a road. 8.  On 14 September 1995 the applicants requested that their house and the remainder of their land also be expropriated. 9.  By the end of 1995 the planned road was built, passing through the plot in question. 10.  On 11 October 1996 the Real Estate Office in Podgorica (“the REOP”) expropriated only the plot specified by the PCFP, without considering the applicants’ request. 11.  On 29 October 1996 the applicants lodged an appeal, but by 11 December 1996 this appeal had been rejected. 12.  On 5 February 1998 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) quashed the above decisions. 13.  By 3 March 2004, following eight remittals, the requests were still pending before the REOP. 14.  Between 3 March 2004 and 28 March 2005 three hearings were adjourned, as either the municipality’s representative or the court’s expert witnesses had failed to appear. 15.  On 18 February 2005 the applicants sought an “inspection” (inspekcijski nadzor) of the proceedings at issue. By 16 March 2005 the Ministry of Justice had “established irregularities” in the proceedings and ordered that they be rectified (otklanjanje utvrđenih nepravilnosti). 16.  On 28 March 2005 the REOP accepted both expropriation requests and on 1 September 2005 this decision was confirmed on appeal. 17.  On 6 June 2006 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud) quashed the latter decision. 18.  On 3 October 2006 the Ministry of Finance (“the MOF”) quashed the REOP’s decision of 28 March 2005. 19.  Since the REOP had failed to render a decision thereafter, on 11 June 2007 and 14 August 2007 respectively the applicants lodged complaints with the MOF. 20.  On 30 August 2007 the applicants also initiated a dispute (upravni spor) before the Administrative Court. 21.  On 7 September 2007 the MOF accepted the applicants’ appeal and ordered the REOP to decide on the matter within thirty days. 22.  On 24 October 2007 the Administrative Court stayed the administrative dispute. 23.  On 3 November 2007 the REOP accepted both expropriation requests, but on 28 May 2008 the MOF quashed this decision on appeal. 24.  On 16 December 2008 the applicants re-instituted their dispute before the Administrative Court. 25.  As of 19 May 2010 the proceedings were still pending.