7.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia. 8.  In 1972 the applicants purchased from the Sofia municipality a three‑room apartment of seventy-four square metres located in a three‑storey building in the centre of the city. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following several years. 9.  In November 1992 some of the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law. 10.  As the proceedings had not been brought by all heirs of the pre‑nationalisation owner, they only concerned half of the applicants’ apartment. The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 May 1999. 11.  The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for construction of buildings of more than three storeys, according to the Sofia building plan of the 1970s, and the relevant legislation prohibited the sale of apartments in three-storey buildings located in such areas. 12.  In 1998 and 1999 other heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law seeking to recover the remaining half of the apartment. It appears that those proceedings were terminated as time-barred. 13.  In 1999 the applicants requested to be accommodated as tenants in a municipal dwelling. This was refused as they still owned one half of the apartment. 14.  In 2000 the applicants vacated half of the apartment, which the restored owners started to use. 15.  The applicants vacated the whole apartment in 2005 when they and the restored owners sold their respective parts of the property to a third party. The applicants received 70,000 euros (EUR). On an unspecified date the new owner demolished the building. 16.  In 1998 the applicants requested compensation bonds. On 17 April 2001 the regional governor granted the request and ordered that an expert be appointed to assess the value of the property. On 6 June 2001 the governor issued another order rectifying an obvious error in the first one. The applicants did not visit the governor’s office to receive the new order and the proceedings were apparently stayed. 17.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007. 18.  Shortly after the adoption of that judgment, on 8 May 2007 the Government published regulations implementing section 7 (3) of the Restitution Law (State Gazette no. 37 of May 2007). The regulations enable persons currently in possession of housing compensation bonds to obtain payment at face value from the Ministry of Finance.