4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1947 respectively and live in Vilnius. 5.  By decision of the Vilnius District Court on 9 June 1995 the applicants’ action against a building company for attribution of ownership rights to two partially-built houses was dismissed. The court declared null and void the sale contracts on the basis of which the applicants claimed title to the houses, and recognised the ownership rights of the building company in respect of the houses. 6.  The applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Vilnius Regional Court on 5 September 1995. The court noted, inter alia, that the applicants could request the company to cover their expenses for construction of the houses. That decision was final. 7.  On 5 January 1996 the applicants brought a new action, claiming property rights to the houses. On 18 March 1996 the Vilnius District Court stayed the proceedings, ordering an expert examination with a view to establishing the sum of money invested by the applicants in the construction. The expert examination was concluded on 18 April 1997. 8.  On 27 September 1996 the applicants brought a further action, claiming reimbursement of expenses which they had incurred while terminating the construction after the alleged sale of the partially-built houses. These proceedings were joined to the proceedings regarding the claim to ownership. 9.  A number of hearings took place on 11 November, 16 and 30 December 1997, 9 February, 9 April, 10 June, 6 October 1998, 21 January 1999, 28 August, 8 October, 20 November, 4 December 2001, 17 January, 27 February, 11 July, 4 September, 22 October, 27 November 2002, 7 January 2003, 3 February, 3 and 31 March, 17 April, 12 May, 24 and 25 June, 15 and 22 December 2003. 10.  On 16 December 1997 the applicants dropped the claim to ownership but the claim concerning the expenses remained. 11.  On 4 February 1998 the applicants modified their claim by increasing the amounts of expenses to be reimbursed. 12.  On 10 June and 6 October 1998 the hearings were adjourned due to non-appearance of the applicants. 13.  On 21 January 1999 the Vilnius District Court stayed the examination of the applicants’ claim until the resolution of a case brought by the building company (see paragraph 22 below) observing that relevant documents were included in the latter case. 14.  In the meantime, criminal proceedings were instituted against a manager of the building company, on a charge of unlawfully selling the company’s property. The criminal proceedings were discontinued and resumed several times. 15.  On 21 February 2000 and, repeatedly, on 16 May 2001 and 7 January 2003 the Vilnius District Court sent requests to another court for relevant material from a related civil case to be transmitted. It appears that the examination of the merits was stayed during that period. 16.  On 28 August and 20 November 2001 the hearings were adjourned upon the request of the parties as they were involved in friendly settlement negotiations and the first applicant was considering abandoning his claim (although he had not done so). 17.  On 8 October and 4 December 2001, 17 January 2002 the hearings were adjourned as one of the applicants failed to appear; his participation was declared mandatory. 18.  On 27 February 2002 the Vilnius District Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of criminal proceedings concerning the same parties (see paragraph 14 above). Upon the applicants’ appeal, that decision was quashed by the Vilnius Regional Court on 6 May 2002. 19.  From 11 July 2002 until 17 April 2003 several hearings were adjourned, inter alia, because of the failure of prosecutors to provide the court with information about the related criminal case. 20.  On 25 June 2003 the applicants’ case was transferred to the Vilnius Regional Court. The latter examined the applicants’ claim on 22 December 2003, and dismissed it as unsubstantiated. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 11 October 2004. 21.  On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that the applicants’ had failed to substantiate their claim regarding recovery of the expenses incurred. 22.  On 13 May 1997 the building company brought a claim for damages against the applicants and third persons for unlawful appropriation of the disputed houses. 23.  On 25 September 1997 the proceedings brought by the building company were stayed because of other related civil cases involving the same parties, inter alia, the first civil case (see paragraph 7 above). 24.  The first-instance court inquired several times into progress in the other civil cases, with a view to recommencing examination of the case. In September 2005 the plaintiff informed the court that other proceedings were still pending. At the same time the applicants informed that they did not object to resuming examination of the case but were not aware whether the circumstances for its suspension still existed. One more inquiry was sent by the court in 2006. 25.  Neither the Government nor the applicants provided information about any procedural steps taken during the period from 2007 to 2010. 26.  On 12 January 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court decided not to examine the claim concluding that the plaintiff had failed to pursue its action and to inform the court of the need for a further suspension of the case. It appears that the court possessed no information about the outcome of the related civil cases which had been the cause of the suspension.