5.  The applicants Mrs Gerlinde Kempe (“the first applicant” or “the applicant”) and Mr Richard Kempe (“the second applicant”) are a married couple and live in Berlin. They are born in 1947 and 1945 respectively. The first applicant owns a house in Berlin. The second applicant has a lifelong right of abode (Wohnungsrecht) in the top floor apartment of the said house. 6.  Following a fire in October 2005 the applicants notified the competent building authority of their intention to rebuild the top floor of the house and applied for the necessary construction permit on 19 October 2005. They started the construction works while the proceedings on the building permit were still under way. 7.  On 25 October 2005 the building authority prohibited the continuation of the construction works. The applicant objected and applied for interim measures. On 24 November 2005 the application was dismissed by the Berlin Administrative Court, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal on 20 December 2005. 8.  On 24 January 2006 the building authority refused to issue a building permit for the reconstruction of the top floor. On 24 February 2006 the applicant lodged an objection. 9.  The applicants completed the reconstruction of the top floor and the second applicant started using the apartment together with his son and daughter-in-law. 10.  On 21 February 2006 the building authority issued a prohibition of use order (Nutzungsuntersagung). The applicant objected and applied for interim measures. On 21 April 2006 this application was dismissed by the Administrative Court, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal of 23 August 2006. 11.  In October 2006 discussions between the applicant and the building authorities on the framework conditions for the possible grant of a building permit took place. 12.  In December 2006 as well as January and February 2007 the building authority threatened to initiate compulsory measures regarding the prohibition of use order. The applicant subsequently applied for a suspension of the enforcement of the order pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the building permit. The second applicant, his son and daughter-in–law subsequently vacated the apartment. 13.  On 25 May 2007 the applicant brought an action for failure to act with the Berlin Administrative Court (file No. VG 19 A 159.07) since her objection against the refusal of the building permit lodged on 24 February 2006 had not been decided on and requested the grant of a building permit for the top floor apartment. 14.  In August 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the application for a suspension of the enforcement of the prohibition of use order, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Court of Appeal of 30 November 2007. 15.  On 14 April 2008 the applicant was informed that a date for an oral hearing in the proceedings regarding the building permit (file No. VG 19 A 159.07) could not yet be set because older proceedings had to be dealt with as a priority. 16.  On 31 May 2010 an oral hearing in the said proceedings was scheduled for 21 July 2010. 17.  Following the hearing, the Berlin Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim for the grant of a building permit by a judgment of 21 July 2010 (file No. VG 19 A 159.07). On 31 August 2010 she requested leave to appeal the decision with the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal. The proceedings are still pending.