4.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1961, 1964, 1928 and 1927 respectively and live in Banjol, Croatia. 5.  In 1963 the Communist authorities nationalised a plot of land on the island of Rab, owned by the fourth and fifth applicants and a certain J.Š., who was the first applicant’s husband and the second and the third applicants’ father. In 1964, a restaurant was built on the site. It appears that the land, which had been transferred into social ownership, was subsequently given to the company I. for its use. 6.  During the process of privatisation of the company I. the land was included as part of its share capital. However, a number of shares were reserved to serve as compensation for former owners of nationalised property which formed part of the company’s share capital. On 20 June 1994 the Croatian Privatisation Fund (Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju) gave its consent to the privatisation of the company, which on the basis of that decision subsequently became the owner of the land in question. 7.  On 11 October 1996 the Croatian Parliament passed the Act on Compensation for, and Restitution of, Property Taken under the Yugoslav Communist Regime (Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za vrijeme jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine, Official Gazette nos. 92/96, 92/99 (corrigendum), 80/02 (amendments) and 81/02 (corrigendum) – “the Denationalisation Act”) which enabled former owners of nationalised or confiscated property, or their heirs in the first line of succession to seek either restitution of or compensation for the property taken. The Act entered into force on 1 January 1997. 8.  On 16 June 1997 the applicants, relying on the Denationalisation Act, instituted administrative proceedings before the regional office of the state administration in Rab, as the competent first-instance administrative authority. Initially they asked to be awarded shares in the company I. as compensation for the above plot of land. It would appear that they subsequently sought restitution in kind. 9.  On 24 March 2003 the Rab regional office issued an interim decision granting the applicants state bonds in compensation for the property taken. The exact amount of compensation was to be determined after the enactment of the relevant subordinate legislation. On 22 December 2003 the Ministry of Finance adopted the Ordinance on the Criteria for the Determination of Compensation for Construction Land and Business Premises Taken under the Yugoslav Communist Regime (Pravilnik o mjerilima za utvrđivanje naknade za oduzeto građevinsko zemljište i poslovni prostor, Official Gazette no. 204/03, 03/04 – “the Ordinance”), which entered into force on 1 April 2004. 10.  On 18 April 2003 the applicants appealed to the Ministry of Justice against the first-instance decision asserting in the main that they were seeking the restitution of the plot of land in question rather than compensation for it. 11.  As a result of the fact that the Ministry of Justice did not render a decision on their appeal within the statutory time-limit of sixty days, on 24 September 2003 the applicants brought an action for failure to respond (tužba zbog šutnje administracije, see paragraph 31 below) in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). 12.  On 23 June 2004 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. They complained about the length of the above administrative proceedings and requested the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) to order the Administrative Court to decide on their action within three months. 13.  On 27 October 2004 the Administrative Court passed a judgment ordering the Ministry of Justice to decide on the applicants’ appeal of 18 April 2003 within thirty days. 14.  On 8 December 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint of 23 June 2004 and served its decision on their representative on 17 December 2004. It examined only the length of the proceedings before the Administrative Court between 24 September 2003 and 23 June 2004, when the constitutional complaint was lodged. It held, consequently, that the length of proceedings, which had lasted for only nine months, could not be considered excessive. 15.  The applicants, having taken the view that the Ministry had failed to comply with the Administrative Court’s judgment of 27 October 2004 within the time-limit indicated, initially urged the Ministry to do so on 6 December 2004 (see paragraph 35 below) and on 17 December 2004 requested the Administrative Court to decide on their appeal, that is to say, act as a court of full jurisdiction and issue its own decision in substitution for that of the Ministry (see paragraph 36 below). 16.  On 9 March 2005 the Administrative Court declared the applicants’ request inadmissible as being premature. It found that its judgment of 27 October 2004 had only been served on the Ministry on 9 November 2004 and that therefore the applicant’s request of 6 December 2004 urging the Ministry to decide on their appeal had been submitted too early. 17.  On the 15 February 2006 the Ministry of Justice reversed the first-instance decision of 24 March 2003 and dismissed the applicants’ request of 16 June 1997 in its entirety. 18.  The applicants then brought an action before the Administrative Court challenging that decision. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before that court. 19.  On 29 February 2000 the applicants filed with the Croatian Privatisation Fund a petition to declare null and void (prijedlog za proglašavanje rješenja ništavim) its decision of 20 June 1994 (see paragraph 6 above) – an extraordinary remedy available under the Administrative Procedure Act (see paragraph 29 below). They argued that they had not been given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings leading to that decision. 20.  As the Fund did not give a decision on the applicants’ petition within the statutory time-limit of sixty days, on 27 June 2000 the applicants brought an action for failure to respond in the Administrative Court (see paragraph 32 below). 21.  On 28 July 2000 the Fund dismissed the applicants’ petition as it considered it to be a petition for the reopening of the proceedings. 22.  Shortly afterwards, the applicants modified their action of 27 June 2000 and challenged the Fund’s decision of 28 July 2000 maintaining that they had not requested the reopening of the case but had challenged the Fund’s decision of 20 June 1994 on its merits. 23.  On 12 September 2002 the Administrative Court found for the applicants and quashed the Fund’s decision of 28 July 2000. The case was remitted to the Fund. 24.  On 23 January 2003 the Fund dismissed the applicants’ petition finding that the arguments adduced by the applicants did not constitute grounds to declare the decision of 20 June 1994 null and void. The applicants once again brought an action in the Administrative Court. 25.  On 14 October 2004 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ action endorsing the reasons given by the Fund in its decision of 23 January 2003. 26.  On 31 January 2005 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint against the Administrative Court’s decision. 27.  On 18 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed their complaint.