4.  The applicants, Ms D. Rybczyński and Mr T. Rybczyński, brother and sister, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and live in Przemyśl. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Rybczyński, the applicants’ father. 5.  On 27 April 1993 the applicants filed a civil action for damages with the Przemyśl Regional Court and at the same time requested an exemption from court fees. The proceedings concerned the devastation caused to the applicants’ flat by tenants. 6.  On 18 May 1993 the court granted the applicants partial exemption from the fees. The applicants appealed and challenged the impartiality of all the judges of the court, since its President was a brother of the husband of one of the defendants. On 24 September 1993 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal exempted the applicants from the payment of court fees and subsequently two judges were excluded from the examination of their case. 7.  On 15 November 1993 a hearing was held, but it was adjourned until 26 November 1993 upon the defendants’ request. 8.  On 26 November 1993 the defendants replied to the claim. They stated that they had lived in the applicants’ flat from 1945 to 1992 as Bug River claimants. They denied having devastated the flat and pointed out that the applicants had sued all of the other tenants. At the same time they requested the court to summon 5 witnesses. The hearing held on 26 November 1993 was adjourned upon the defendants’ representative’s motion. 9.  Between 13 December 1993 and 14 February 1994 four hearings were held, during which the court heard 9 witnesses. 10.  On 16 March 1994 the applicants extended their claim and demanded compensation for lost profits as a result of the devastation of their flat. 11.  Between 23 March 1994 and 5 September 1994 three further hearings were held, during which, inter alia, the applicants requested the court to appoint an expert to assess the damage. 12.  On 11 October 1994 the expert appointed by the Przemyśl Regional Court sent the case file back and stated that she was not able to prepare the opinion due to the applicants’ representative’s obstructive conduct. The case file was sent to another expert, who on 9 November 1994 returned it informing the court about his close personal relations with the husband of one of the defendants and with the applicants’ representative. On 30 November 1994 the court sent the case file to another expert and on 26 May 1995 the requested opinion was submitted. The applicants challenged it. 13.  At a hearing on 19 July 1995 the court ordered a supplementary opinion and adjourned the hearing upon the defendants’ attorney’s request. 14.  On 6 November 1995 the expert supplemented his previous opinion. 15.  On 29 December 1995 a hearing was held at which the court heard the expert and, upon the defendants’ request, ordered another supplementary expert opinion and adjourned the hearing. 16.  On 26 February 1996 the expert informed the court about his serious illness and asked to be relieved of the obligation to prepare the opinion. Consequently, on 21 March 1996 the case file was sent to another expert who was given a time-limit of 3 months to prepare the opinion. However, on 1 April 1996 he returned the case file informing the court about his close personal relations with the husband of one of the defendants and with the applicants’ representative. In consequence, on 25 April 1996 the case file was sent to another expert, who was ordered to prepare the opinion within 3 months. However, on 29 May 1996 he returned the case file pointing out that he did not have sufficient qualifications to prepare it. On 17 July 1996 the court sent the case file to another expert, who was given 3 months to prepare an opinion. It was submitted to the Przemyśl Regional Court on 31 October 1996. 17.  On 26 November 1996 the applicants and the defendants lodged objections against the expert opinion. 18.  Between 9 December 1996 and 17 December 1997 four hearings were held, during which the expert submitted his supplementary opinion, the applicants challenged it and both parties were heard by the court. 19.  On 29 December 1997 the Przemyśl Regional Court gave a judgment, partly dismissing the applicants’ action. Both parties appealed. 20.  By a judgment of 29 October 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicants’ and dismissed the defendants’ appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. 21.  On 10 July 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal.