5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 9 June 1995 the Vilnius District Court dismissed an action by several private individuals against the applicant company for attribution of ownership rights to two partially built houses, nos. 57-1 and 57-2. The court declared null and void the sale contracts on the basis of which the claimants, including G.G. and M.N., had maintained their title to the houses, and recognised the ownership rights of the applicant company in respect of the houses. 7.  The claimants’ appeal was dismissed by the Vilnius Regional Court on 5 September 1995. The court noted, inter alia, that G.G. and M.N. could request the company to cover their costs for construction of the houses. That decision was final. 8.  On 15 July 1996 the applicant company lodged a civil claim for the eviction of G.G. from the house, no. 57-2, that had previously been attributed to the applicant company in the above-mentioned civil proceedings between G.G. and the applicant company. G.G. had unlawfully occupied the house and continued to live there, thus preventing the applicant company from enjoying its ownership rights. 9.  From 10 January to 11 November 1997 the proceedings were suspended at G.G.’s request, because he had a pending appeal on points of law against the court decision of 9 June 1995. 10.  In December 1998 G.G. lodged a counterclaim against the applicant company, seeking acknowledgement that he was the owner of the house. G.G. also requested that the applicant company be prohibited from disposing of or mortgaging it. 11.  On 21 January 1999 the Vilnius Region District Court (hereinafter “the district court”) imposed a provisional measure and prohibited the applicant company from selling or transferring the disputed property, in order to secure G.G.’s counterclaim. On the same day the proceedings were suspended due to a related civil case which contained material relevant to the proceedings in question. 12.  On 3 February 1999 a letter was sent to G.G. requesting monthly payments from him because he was unlawfully occupying the house. 13.  On 12 May 2000 the district court suspended the enforcement of the court decision of 9 June 1995. 14.  The civil proceedings were resumed on 28 August 2001. 15.  On 23 May 2002 the same court allowed the applicant company’s claim. However, on 18 June 2002 the Vilnius Regional Court remitted the case for re-examination to the first-instance court. On 23 December 2002 the Supreme Court upheld that decision. 16.  Court hearings of 8 April 2003 and 9 February 2004 were adjourned at the request of the parties, as they were involved in friendly settlement negotiations; however, the negotiations failed on both those occasions. 17.  On 18 November 2003 the Vilnius Regional Court ordered the case to be examined by the Vilnius Regional Court as the court of first instance, having found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to examine this kind of case. At the same time the adjournment of the case which had been ordered by the latter court on 2 October 2003 was set aside. 18.  On 7 September 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court, at the request of G.G., issued an order seizing the applicant company’s plot of land on which the house stood, to secure G.G.’s counterclaim. 19.  The case was adjourned from 27 September to 6 December 2004 for a file from a related criminal case against G.G. to be obtained from another court. 20.  On 23 December 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim but allowed G.G.’s counterclaim. 21.  On 24 May 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the lower court and allowed the applicant company’s claim. G.G. appealed to the Supreme Court. 22.  On 19 December 2005 the Supreme Court remitted the case again to the first-instance court for re-examination. 23.  The applicant company lodged a request to lift the seizure of the property, arguing that this measure was not proportionate as it imposed too heavy burden on financial interests of one of the parties to the proceedings. On 2 February 2006 the Vilnius Regional Court rejected that request. 24.  On 26 October 2006 the Vilnius Regional Court adjourned the proceedings until a related civil case, in which the legal status of the applicant company was disputed, was resolved. The applicant company appealed against that adjournment but the higher court upheld it. 25.  On 5 September 2007 the proceedings were recommenced. 26.  The applicant company submitted requests to the court for the seizure of the house occupied by G.G. to be lifted, and argued that the company had been suffering losses because of unpaid rent amounting to 3,200 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 920 euros (EUR)) each month. On 21 November and 2 December 2008 those requests were dismissed. 27.  On 19 February 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the applicant company’s claim and dismissed G.G.’s counterclaim. The court also ordered the provisional measures to be lifted once the decision became final. 28.  On 22 February 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. That ruling was final. 29.  According to the applicants, the disputed house was returned by the bailiff to the applicant company on 28 July 2010. 30.  On 20 June 1996 a private individual, M.N., submitted a civil claim asking for acknowledgement of his ownership rights to the house, no. 57-1, which had already been attributed to the applicant company by the court decision of 9 June 1995 (see paragraph 6). The house had been returned by the bailiff to the applicant company on 17 April 1996. Later on, M.N. modified his claim, asking only for reimbursement of construction costs. 31.  At the request of M.N., on 25 June 1996 the court gave a ruling on seizure of the applicant company’s property, which prohibited the house from being sold or ownership transferred until the case had been examined by the courts. 32.  On 16 November 1996 a pre-trial investigation against M.N. was opened: he was accused of forgery of documents and misappropriation of property. 33.  On 17 November 1997 and 3 February 1998 M.N. amended his action, withdrawing the claim for attribution of the title to the house and asking only for reimbursement of costs. 34.  In March 1998 the applicant company submitted a counterclaim for damage allegedly caused by M.N. In May an amended counterclaim was submitted. 35.  On 1 June 1998 the court ordered a forensic assessment of the construction costs claimed by M.N., and the proceedings were stayed until 24 June 1999. 36.  On 16 December 1999 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed M.N.’s claim for reimbursement of construction costs. At the same time it dismissed the applicant company’s counterclaim concerning damages. On 5 June 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed as unfounded both appeals submitted by the parties. 37.  Upon an appeal on points of law by M.N., on 18 October 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of those courts and remitted the case for re-examination to the court of first instance. 38.  The applicant company requested the courts to lift the provisional measure. On 15 February 2001 the Court of Appeal declined to lift it and observed that the proceedings were still ongoing, since the Supreme Court had decided to remit the case for re-examination. 39.  On 8 June 2001 the Vilnius Regional Court suspended the proceedings until a related pre-trial investigation into M.N. actions was complete. 40.  After the proceedings were resumed, on 3 January 2002 the court suspended them again because the pre-trial investigation was still ongoing. 41.  On 17 February 2003 the proceedings were resumed. 42.  On 18 March, 29 April, 10 June, 4 September, and 14 October 2003 the hearings were adjourned, as the case was not ready for examination because the pre-trial investigation was still ongoing; besides, the applicant company’s representative was not present at three of those hearings. M.N. objected to the applicant company’s requests for postponement, considering the criminal proceedings against him irrelevant to the case at hand. 43.  On 17 August 2004 the civil proceedings were recommenced after the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 14 July 2004 to discontinue the criminal case against M.N due to prescription. 44.  On 7 October 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court refused the applicant company’s request for the provisional measure to be lifted. 45.  On 8 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the civil claim by M.N. On 26 January 2006 the Court of Appeal by a final decision rejected an appeal by M.N. against this decision as unfounded. 46.  At the request of the applicant company the Vilnius Regional Court lifted the provisional measure on 3 March 2006; that decision became final on 27 April 2006.