4.  The first applicant, Mr E. Záborský, was born in 1912 and died on 9 April 2000. Ms G. Strešnáková, his daughter, has acted in his stead in pursuing the case. The second applicant, Ms E. Šmáriková, was born in 1917 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 10 February 1992 the applicants claimed, together with several other persons, restitution of real property pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991. They alleged that their legal predecessors had donated the property to the State under duress. On 27 February 1992 the applicants submitted further documents and on 18 March 1992 the defendant submitted observations on the action. 6.  In two separate actions filed on 25 February 1992 further persons claimed restitution of a part of the same property. On 15 April 1992 the court decided to examine all actions in a single set of proceedings. On 22 May 1992 the defendant submitted an expert opinion concerning the property. 7.  On 25 June 1992 the Banská Bystrica District Court adjourned the case as further documents were necessary. On 20 July 1992 it appointed an expert with a view to establishing whether or not the property in question had been re-built in a substantial manner as claimed by the defendant. The opinion was submitted on 7 September 1992. Hearings were held on 25 November 1992 and on 7 January 1993. 8.  On 11 January 1993 the Banská Bystrica District Court decided the case in that it ordered the defendant to conclude with one of the plaintiffs an agreement on restitution of the property. The judgment was served in June 1993. The defendant and the unsuccessful plaintiffs appealed. On 16 September 1993 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and instructed the District Court to take further evidence. The appellate court's decision was served on 5 November 1993, and the parties were invited to specify which evidence they proposed to take. The District Court also took further evidence of its own initiative. 9.  A hearing was held on 21 February 1994. The plaintiffs were invited to submit further documents. 10.  On 22 April 1994 the District Court appointed an expert with a view to establishing whether the property had been substantially rebuilt following its transfer to the State in 1962. On 5 May 1994 the institution concerned informed the court that it was not in a position to submit an expert opinion. 11.  On 8 August 1994 the District Court appointed the Construction Faculty of the Slovak Technical University in Bratislava as expert and ordered that the opinion on the above issue be submitted within thirty days. On 23 November 1994 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion. It was submitted on 12 January 1995. In February and March 1995 the parties submitted their comments on the opinion. 12.  Several plaintiffs and the representative of the defendant failed to appear at hearings held on 15 May 1995 and on 12 July 1995. The parties were instructed to submit further information. 13.  Further hearings were held on 6 and 11 December 1995. On the latter date the Banská Bystrica District Court delivered a new judgment in which it ordered the defendant to restore the property in question to the plaintiffs. The judgment was served on the parties in the course of August 1996. On 6 and 17 September 1996 the defendant appealed. 14.  On 8 October 1996 the president of the Banská Bystrica District Court admitted, in reply to the applicants' complaint, that there had been undue delays in drafting the judgment of 11 December 1995 with reasons. 15.  On 25 October 1996 the District Court delivered a supplementary judgment in which it corrected certain errors in the judgment of 11 December 1995. On 13 and 18 November 1996 the plaintiffs appealed against the supplementary judgment. The case-file was transmitted to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 21 November 1996. 16.  On 20 May 1997 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment of 11 December 1995, as subsequently amended, as being erroneous. It instructed the District Court to have the scope of the claim specified by the plaintiffs and to take further evidence. The decision stated, inter alia, that the first instance court had not correctly specified the experts' task and that, as a result, their opinions were not sufficient. The appellate court's decision was served in June 1997. 17.  On 20 June 1997 Mr E. Záborský requested that the case be transferred to a District Court in Bratislava. He objected, in particular, that the length of the proceedings was excessive. On 29 July 1997 the applicant withdrew his request. 18.  On 13 October 1997 the court requested the plaintiffs to specify, within fifteen days, which share of the property each of them claimed and to provide further information concerning the property claimed. The legal representative of five plaintiffs replied on 3 November 1997. On 18 November 1997 the legal representative of the other plaintiffs asked for an extension of the time-limit on the ground that he had been ill and that the information requested was complex. 19.  On 12 January 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiffs had not complied with its order of 13 October 1997. The parties appealed. The case-file was transferred to the Regional Court on 9 February 1999. On 3 March 1998 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 12 January 1998 on the ground that the District Court had not instructed the plaintiffs how the shortcomings in their actions should be remedied and that the time-limit set for that purpose had not been adequate, in particular in view of the fact that information from the land registry was required and that the plaintiffs were represented by several lawyers. 20.  On 6 March 1998 the District Court instructed the plaintiffs to submit complementary information concerning their claims within thirty days. 21.  On 17 June 1998 the District Court heard the parties and decided to obtain a second expert opinion. 22.  On 2 July 1998 the representative of five plaintiffs specified the subject-matter of the claims. 23.  By a decision of 26 October 1998 the District Court appointed the Construction Faculty of the Technical University in Košice as expert. It was instructed to establish which parts of the house had been re-built after 1962 and to submit the opinion within thirty days. On 24 November 1998 the Banská Bystrica District Court sent the case-file to the Košice II District Court which was to transmit it to the expert. The university appointed as expert received the file on 23 March 1999. 24.  In June, July and October 1999 the Banská Bystrica District Court urged the expert to submit the opinion. It was submitted on 24 November 1999. Between 13 December 1999 and 1 February 2000 the parties submitted their comments on the opinion. 25.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 21 February 2000 and on 6 March 2000. On the latter date the District Court dismissed the action with reference to the conclusions reached by an expert who had been earlier appointed and by the Construction Faculty of the Technical University in Košice. 26.  At the judge's request the President of the District Court extended the time-limit for drafting the judgment in writing until 30 May 2000 on the ground that the judge had a heavy workload, that the case was complex and, later, that the judge had difficulties with his health. 27.  On 22 May 2000 the lawyer representing several of the plaintiffs informed the District Court that Mr E. Záborský had died on 9 April 2000. The lawyer further requested the court to allow Mr. Záborský's wife and daughter to join the proceedings in his place. 28.  The first instance judgment was served in the course of June 2000. The plaintiffs appealed. On 12 July 2000 the representative of six plaintiffs submitted reasons for the appeal at the court's request. On 3 August 2000 the case was submitted to the appellate court. 29.  On 10 October 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. The Regional Court further quashed the first instance decision on the costs of the proceedings. On 6 April 2001 the Banská Bystrica District Court decided that the State was not entitled to have the costs of the proceedings reimbursed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Reference was made to the complex character of the point at issue and also to the length of the proceedings.