4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1963 respectively and live in Eisenerz. 5.  The applicants, as owners of certain plots of agricultural land in Eisenerz, were members of the agricultural association (Agrar­gemeinschaft) “Waldgenossen­schaft Eisenerz”, holding a share in that association (“the share”). That share corresponded to the right to use the land of the agricultural association for farming and forestry. 6.  On 28 November 1988 the applicants filed a request with the Leoben District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) to resign from the association and have their share transformed into parcels of land which should then be separated from the association’s land. 7.  On 16 December 1988 the Leoben District Agricultural Authority decided to institute the partition proceedings (Teilungsverfahren). 8.  Since the District Agricultural Authority failed to decide on the merits the applicants lodged a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutions­antrag) on 3 October 1989. 9.  On 24 January 1990 the Regional Land Reform Board (Landes­agrarsenat) declared that it had now jurisdiction in the present case. 10.  By decision of 23 January 1991 the Regional Land Reform Board decided to which percentage of the association’s land the applicants’ shares corresponded. 11.  On 24 September 2003, after having obtained two expert opinions in the field of agriculture and forestry on the feasibility of an actual separation of parcels of land which would correspond to the applicants’ share, the Regional Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants’ request. The Regional Land reform Board decision contained a note as to available remedies (Rechtsmittelbelehrung) which stated that against this decision an appeal could be lodged within two weeks with the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat). 12.  On 15 December 2003 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Land Reform Board as set out in the instructions as to available remedies. 13.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Land Reform Board rejected the applicants’ appeal since it found that it had no jurisdiction in the case. 14.  On 23 December 2004 the applicants lodged a request for reinstatement of the proceedings (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) along with a complaint with the Constitutional Court. 15.  On 28 February 2005 the Constitutional Court granted the applicants’ request for reinstatement since the instructions as to available remedies given by the Regional Land Reform Board were incorrect. 16.  On 26 September 2005 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision of the Regional Land Reform Board. It found that the applicants’ right to an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated since the two experts in the case also belonged to the body deciding on their request and remitted the case back. 17.  Subsequently, on 18 January 2006, the Regional Land Reform Board adjourned the proceedings for further investigations. 18.  On 9 June 2006 the applicants submitted a document containing three possible options for a financial settlement in case of their withdrawal from the association. 19.  By decision of 28 February 2007 the Regional Land Reform Board defined which part of the land belonged to whom and adjourned the proceedings once again. 20.  By letter of 19 September 2007 the Regional Land Reform Board requested the District Agricultural Authority to determine by expert opinions potential parcels of land parts which could be separated from the rest for a settlement. The applicants claimed that this expert opinion had never been served on them. 21.  In the course of an oral hearing on 26 March 2008 to which the applicants allegedly were not summoned the Regional Land Reform Board decided to interrupt the proceeding until 26 March 2011 in order to secure proper evaluation of the association and its property. 22.  On 3 November 2008 the applicants sold their shares of the agricultural association to another member of the association and on 3 November 2009 the District Agricultural Authority closed the proceedings on the applicants’ partition request and in October 2009 the Land Register was amended accordingly.