4.  The applicants live in Kuusjoki, Perniö, Tuohittu and Humppila respectively. 5.  The first applicant and Mr Lehtonen were from 1989 to 1991 members of the board of directors of a local bank which subsequently went bankrupt. On 30 December 1993 the successor property management company of the bank, which was owned by the Finnish State, initiated civil proceedings before the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), claiming compensation from the first applicant and Mr Lehtonen. The company claimed that the first applicant and Mr Lehtonen along with other persons had caused the bank damage exceeding 134 million euros (EUR) through accepting loan applications and neglecting their duty to supervise the acts of the management. Later the amount of damages claimed was lowered to EUR 90 million. 6.  The District Court held preparatory meetings in the case on 8 March 1994, 8 November 1995, 9-10 January 1996 and 25 January 1996. On 5 February 1996 the court gave an interlocutory judgment concerning succession issues and the application of the statute of limitations. During the preparatory meetings the parties agreed to wait for the outcome of other proceedings which were closely related to the case and could provide additional information for its resolution. After the preparatory meetings the case was processed only in writing. The judge responsible for the case was changed a number of times and the parties, despite several attempts, were not able to settle the case. 7.  During the District Court proceedings the first applicant and Mr Lehtonen, among others, requested that the proceedings be terminated and that the complaints of the successor company be either rejected or dismissed without examining the merits. They maintained that, according to the Convention, proceedings should be terminated within a reasonable time. That rule had not been complied with in their case and the proceedings should therefore be discontinued. 8.  On 9 March 1996 Mr Lehtonen died and his estate, comprising his wife and two daughters, continued the case on his behalf (hereafter the second applicant). 9.  On 29 June 2004 the District Court decided to accept the applicants’ request and dismissed the case without examining the merits. The court stated that from the point of view of procedural economy it would be wise to await the outcome of the related proceedings which, however, had lasted longer than expected and were still pending. The case was very complex and it was expected that a judgment would only be rendered in a few years’ time. The applicants had tried to accelerate the proceedings by proposing a settlement on several occasions. The proposals had all been rejected by the successor company. The court concluded that the length of the proceedings was already excessive, that the proceedings could not be accelerated and that the only effective remedy was to dismiss the case without examining the merits. 10.  The successor company appealed to the Turku Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), which on 29 November 2004 quashed the District Court decision and referred the case back to the District Court. The court found that Finnish law did not give a possibility to reject or dismiss a case without examining the merits in a situation where the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. Neither the Convention nor the European Court required that in such cases the proceedings should be terminated. The successor company had, as a separate legal person, according to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the Finnish Constitution, a right to have its case considered by a court. This meant that it had a right to have a final decision in the case even if the length of the proceedings had already been excessive. 11.  On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal. 12.  On 13 June 2005 the District Court made a proposal for the settlement of the case. According to the terms of the settlement, the applicants, along with other persons, were to pay EUR 17,000 each to the plaintiff who would then receive a total sum of EUR 297,000 from the defendants. It was acknowledged in the settlement that the proceedings in the case had been unreasonably long. In part IV of the settlement it was, however, stipulated that
 “[t]he District Court proposes that after an agreement is reached the defendants would commit not to take any legal action in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the unreasonable length of the proceedings.” 13.  The proposal was accepted by the successor company on 17 June 2005 and by the applicants on 21 June 2005. On 22 June 2005 the District Court issued a decision confirming the settlement. No appeal lay against this decision. 14.  The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan apulaisoikeusasiamies, riksdagens biträdande justitieombudsman) had already found on 19 June 2003 that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time.