4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1956, respectively, and live in Koszalin. 5.  On 1 August 1997 the applicants filed a claim with the Koszalin District Court against a housing co-operative concerning the amount of maintenance fees to be fixed in respect of their apartment building. 6.  On 24 November 1998 the proceedings were stayed pending the termination of parallel proceedings relating to the alleged nullity of an amendment made to the co-operative’s statute. The Koszalin District Court resumed the proceedings on 7 March 2003. 7.  On 13 May 2003 a hearing was held. The court requested the Koszalin Regional Court to provide the case-file of the proceedings relating to the alleged nullity of an amendment made to the co-operative’s statute. 8.  On 16 June 2003 the Koszalin District Court decided to stay the proceedings at the applicants’ request. They were resumed, upon the applicants’ request, on 17 November 2004. 9.  Hearings were subsequently held on 23 February, 11 August, 22 September, 10 November and 9 December 2005. 10.  On 30 January 2006 the Koszalin District Court decided to admit an expert opinion. On 6 June and 16 August 2006 the expert requested prolongation of the time-limit for submission of the opinion. 11.  On 6 September 2006 the court summoned the expert to submit the opinion within 7 days. 12.  In 2007 the District Court held 7 hearings. 13.  18 October 2007 the Koszalin District Court gave a judgment in the case. 14.  The judgment was quashed on 27 February 2009 by the Koszalin Regional Court and the case remitted for re-examination. 15.  The proceedings are currently pending before the first-instance court. 16.  On 30 November 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
On 6 January 2006 the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, finding that the trial court could not be held responsible for any delays and that the proceedings had been prolonged as it had been necessary to stay them.