4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Karlovac. 5.  In the period between 11 September 1991 and 13 April 1992 the applicants' restaurant in Karlovac was blown up four times by unknown perpetrators. 6.  On 11 April 1995 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act. 7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed (prekid postupka) pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject. 8.  On 25 June 2001 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment. 9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force. 10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 26 September 2003 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. 11.  Meanwhile, on 24 April 2002 the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 26 October 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the first applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of his constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded him 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 18 November 2004 and its correction on 6 January 2005. 12.  On 31 May 2004 the Municipal Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction in respect of the applicants' claim for pecuniary damages and thus declared that part of their action inadmissible. On 2 November 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 13.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 2 December 2004. Since no one appeared at that hearing on the side of the plaintiffs, the court decided to temporarily suspend the proceedings (mirovanje postupka). The applicants appealed against that decision to the Zagreb County Court. On 11 October 2005 that court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. 14.  On 7 March 2005 the applicants requested the continuation of the proceedings. Their request was granted and a hearing was held on 19 January 2006. At that hearing the court invited the applicants to specify their claim within 90 days. The applicants did so on 15 April 2006. 15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Municipal Court.