8.  The applicant was born in 1930 and was living in Izmir. Following his death on 23 November 2003, his wife and children on 6 April 2004 expressed their intention to pursue the application. 9.  On an unspecified date, the applicant had signed contracts with the Izmir Municipality concerning a road construction. While the construction was in progress, the Municipality annulled the contracts by decisions of 2 and 5 April 1984. 10.  By a judgment of 16 March 1992, the Izmir Commercial Court decided that the cancellations of the contracts were unlawful and therefore invalid. 11.  On 2 October 1992 the applicant approached the Municipality and requested that it followed the court order. By a letter of 20 November 1992, the Municipality declined the applicant’s request. 12.  On 4 March 1993, relying on the judgment of 16 March 1992, the applicant brought an action against the Municipality before the Izmir Commercial Court claiming compensation for the damages he incurred on account of the annulment of the contract. 13.  On 12 October 1993, the court appointed an expert commission in order to determine the amount of the damage incurred by the applicant. On 3 May 1994 the expert report was admitted to the case-file, and the Court decided that the report should be communicated to the parties following payment of the experts’ additional fee by the applicant. 14.  On 1 June 1994 the applicant disputed the conclusions of the expert report regarding the suggested sum and requested a new report. 15.  At the hearing of 15 December 1994 the lawyers of the Municipality failed to appear before the court. Following the hearing, the court issued a letter to the Izmir 2nd Commercial Court asking the latter to transfer the case-file concerning the cancellations of the contracts. On 7 March 1995 the parties were granted time to comment on this file. 16.  On 7 July 1995 the court changed its composition and the case-file was deposited with the new panel of judges for examination. 17.  At the hearing of 18 July 1995, the lawyers of the parties failed to appear before the court. The court decided to obtain an additional report from the experts as both parties had disputed the previous report. 18.  Six hearings were held between 16 November 1995 and 16 May 1997. On that date the court noted that the case-file had not been transmitted to the experts in order them to submit an additional report. The court also noted that the failure to obtain an additional report was due to the fact that one of the experts could not be reached and thus a commission be formed. The parties requested that a new expert commission be appointed. Accordingly, the court designated a new expert commission of three experts to this end. 19.  On 23 December 1997 the court acknowledged receipt of the second report and it was communicated to the parties in order for them to comment on it. 20.  On 30 April 1998 the court accepted the applicant’s claim in part and ordered that the Municipality pay him a certain amount of money. 21.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the first-instance court. 22.  On 14 December 1998 the Court of Cassation, upholding the judgment, rejected the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was notified of this decision on 12 February 1999. 23.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant requested rectification of this decision. On 7 June 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the request for rectification. 24.  This final decision was served on the applicant on 29 July 1999.