6.  The first applicant was born in 1963 and the second applicant in 1992. They both live in Plovdiv. 7.  In 1982 the first applicant married Mr S. They had three children, the last of them was the second applicant. 8.  Sometime in 1993 divorce proceedings were initiated before the Plovdiv District Court. 9.  Mr S. then initiated an action against the first applicant challenging the paternity of the second applicant. He submitted his action to the Plovdiv District Court on 4 August 1993, which forwarded it to the Plovdiv Regional Court where it was received and registered on 9 August 1993. 10.  On an unspecified date, the divorce proceedings were suspended by the Plovdiv District Court pending the outcome of the paternity proceedings. 11.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted nine hearings between 3 November 1993 and 6 June 1995 [1 year, 7 months, 2 days], scheduled two to five months apart. During this period the court heard witnesses, gathered evidence and obtained two experts' opinions. A gynaecological examination and a blood-type test were also conducted. The second applicant joined the proceedings on 21 January 1994. 12.  Of the hearings conducted, one was adjourned from 3 November 1993 to 21 January 1994 [2 months, 18 days] at the request of the first applicant due to illness, the following two were postponed from 17 May to 30 November 1994 [6 months, 14 days] because a court-appointed expert failed to appear and a fourth hearing, scheduled for 4 April 1995, was postponed to 6 June 1995 [2 months, 2 days] due to the defective summoning of a court-appointed expert. 13.  In a judgment of 11 July 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court found in favour of the applicants and dismissed the action of Mr S. as unproven. On 10 August 1995 [30 days] the latter filed an appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court. 14.  A hearing was held before the Supreme Court on 1 March 1996. 15.  In a judgment of 20 March 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court of 11 July 1995 and undertook to hear the case itself. It ordered that another gynaecological examination be conducted, but delegated the appointment of an expert and the organisation of the said examination to the Plovdiv District Court. At the request of Mr S., the Supreme Court also ordered that a DNA test be conducted, instructed him to deposit the necessary fees and set a date for the parties to give blood samples. 16.  Mr S. did not deposit the required fees, as instructed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 20 March 1996. 17.  At a hearing of 4 December 1996, which Mr S. failed to attend, the Supreme Court once again ordered him to deposit the necessary fees. 18.  Mr S. once again failed to deposit the required fees and did not attend the next appointment for a DNA test on 7 February 1997. 19.  Accordingly, the applicants were also unable to give blood samples. 20.  On 7 October 1997 [gap of 7 months, 29 days] the first applicant petitioned the Supreme Court to find that Mr S. had lost interest in the performance of the medical tests and to proceed with the hearing of the case as it stands. The applicant made a similar request on 13 February 1998, [delay due to failure to pay for the tests is 1 year, 10 months, 25 days] as a result of which the case was transferred to the Plovdiv District Court to organise the gynaecological examination. 21.  In response to the request of the Supreme Court to organise the gynaecological examination, the Plovdiv District Court conducted eight hearings between 2 March and 18 December 1998 [total length is 9 months, 17 days], which were scheduled approximately one to two months apart. 22.  On 2 March 1998 the Plovdiv District Court, in camera, appointed a DNA specialist, apparently to conduct the DNA test, and instructed the parties to present themselves for such an examination on 6 April 1998. They failed to present themselves on the designated date. 23.  The hearing of 17 April 1998 was adjourned because the parties and the court-appointed expert failed to attend it for undisclosed reasons. The court also invited the parties to present themselves to give blood samples. 24.  The parties again failed to give blood samples on the designated date. They also failed to attend the next hearing on 19 June 1998, as did the court-appointed expert. As a result, the Plovdiv District Court instructed each of them to pay additional court fees for protracting the proceedings. The hearing was adjourned and a new date was designated for the parties to give blood samples. 25.  The parties attended the next hearing on 24 July 1998 [total time lost since appointment is 4 months, 22 days]. On that date, the court established that it should not have been organising the DNA test, but the gynaecological examination. It therefore dismissed the expert as he could not assist the court in this respect and sought the assistance of the local medical academy to designate an appropriate specialist. It also quashed its previous decision for the parties to pay additional fees for protracting the proceedings. 26.  On an unspecified date, the Plovdiv District Court appointed a new expert to perform the gynaecological examination. 27.  The hearings of 25 September and 16 October 1998 were postponed because the new court-appointed expert failed to attend them, the first time without just cause and the second time because she was not in the country. The subsequent hearing of 27 November 1998 was also adjourned, but due to improper summoning of the representative of the second applicant. 28.  The last hearing before the Plovdiv District Court was conducted on 18 December 1998 when it accepted the results of the gynaecological examination and then transferred the case to the recently created Supreme Court of Cassation. 29.  Meanwhile, on an unspecified date, the divorce proceedings between the first applicant and Mr S. had resumed. They concluded with a judgment of 11 December 1998 of the Plovdiv District Court which approved a separation agreement concluded between the two. The said agreement provided, inter alia, that custody of their first two children would remain with Mr S., while custody of the second applicant would remain with the first. Child support payments were also agreed to be provided by each of the parents for those children who were not living with them. 30.  The paternity proceedings continued before the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 22 February 1999 the said court, in camera, designated a time and place for the parties to give blood samples for the purpose of performing the DNA test, which was still outstanding. 31.  The first applicant informed the court on 30 March 1999 that they had been unable to give blood samples, as instructed by the court, because the second applicant had fallen ill. She petitioned the court to designate a new date for giving blood samples. 32.  The next hearing on 28 May 1999 was adjourned because of the defective summoning of the second applicant. 33.  The hearing of 6 October 1999 was also adjourned as none of the parties had been properly summoned. The Supreme Court of Cassation also designated a new date in November 1999 for them to give blood samples. 34.  At the last hearing on 12 April 2000 [the delay due to improper summoning for last two hearings is 10 months, 16 days] Mr S. withdrew his request for a DNA test. As a result, the Supreme Court of Cassation considered the case ready for decision and withdrew to rule on its merits. 35.  In a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Cassation found in favour of the applicants and dismissed the action of Mr S. as unsubstantiated.