4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1959 respectively and live in Bratislava. 5.  The applicants own a residential house. Two flats in the house are occupied under a lease by families P. and S. respectively. The applicants sought a judicial ruling pursuant to Article 711 § 1 of the Civil Code authorising the termination of the leases. 6.  On 27 May and 16 December 1993, respectively, the termination of the leases was authorised by the Bratislava I District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) and, on appeal, by the Bratislava Regional Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd). The leases were to expire three months after the month in which the ruling became final and binding. Under Article 711 § 2 of the Civil Code the defendants were entitled to “alternative accommodation” and were ordered to vacate the flats at issue within 15 days after such accommodation was provided to them. 7.  The judgment terminating the leases became final and binding on 12 March 1994. Consequently, the leases expired on 30 June 1994. 8.  On 6 July and 31 October 1994 the applicants applied to the District Court for enforcement of the judgment under the general provisions of the Code of the Civil Procedure against, respectively, family S. and family P. 9.  On 7 November 1995 the applicants restated their application. They argued that the defendants had refused to accept the flats where the applicants were currently living as the alternative accommodation to which they were entitled. 10.  On 5 December 1995 the District Court issued two separate warrants for enforcement. The first warrant was issued in favour of the first applicant against family S. and authorised the moving of S. to the first applicant’s current flat. The second warrant was issued in favour of the second applicant and authorised the moving of P. to her current flat. 11.  On 19 December 1995 the defendants challenged the warrants by appeals to the Regional Court arguing that the alternative accommodation offered to them by the applicants was not adequate. 12.  In February and May 1996, respectively, the District Court repeatedly invited the applicants to submit documentary evidence. 13.  In October 1996 the defendants challenged the Regional Court judges involved in the determination of their appeals for bias. In December 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. 14.  On 27 March 1997 the Regional Court quashed the warrants of 5 December 1995 finding that the District Court had failed to examine the defendants’ objections as to the adequacy of the alternative accommodation. The matter was remitted to the District Court for a new determination. 15.  On 12 November 1997 the Environment Department (odbor životného prostredia) of the Bratislava I District Office (Okresný úrad) ordered that the applicants carry out maintenance work on the roof of the house. 16.  On 4 December 1997 the District Court issued new warrants against S. and P. respectively. It formally ordered the enforcement. However, it left the determination of the practical modalities of the enforcement for later, once the applicants had secured adequate alternative accommodation for S. and P. The applicants’ appeal against the warrants was unsuccessful. 17.  On 28 January 1999 the District Office imposed a fine of 2,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] on the first applicant on the ground that she had failed to comply with the order of 12 November 1997. 18.  In October 1999 the District Court invited the applicants’ lawyer to submit evidence that adequate alternative accommodation had been secured for the defendants. 19.  On 29 November 1999 the District Court enquired of the owner of the flat where the fist applicant was living at that time, the Bratislava Ružinov Municipal Office (Miestny úrad), whether it would consent to moving one of the defendants to that flat. On 22 December 1999 the Municipal Office refused such consent. 20.  By two separate decisions of 31 January 2000 the District Court ruled that enforcement of the warrants of 4 December 1997 was not permissible (neprípustný). The first decision concerned the first applicant and was based on the ground that the owner of the alternative flat would not allow S. to move in. The second decision concerned the second applicant and was based on the argument that the alternative accommodation offered by her to P. did not meet the criteria of “adequacy”. On 18 February 2000 the applicants challenged the ruling in an appeal. They disputed the legal definition of “adequate alternative accommodation” applied by the District Court and the factual conclusions at which it had arrived. 21.  On 27 April 2000 the Regional Court quashed the decisions of 31 January 2000 on grounds of several procedural flaws at first instance. Among other things, the Regional Court found that it was illegal for the District Court to determine the matter by two separate decisions, each concerning only one of the applicants, given that the flats in issue were in the applicants’ co‑ownership. 22.  On 27 February 2001 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible P.’s “appeal on points of law” against the decision of 27 April 2000 as no such remedy was available. 23.  In October 2001 the District Court appointed a buildings expert to draw up a report on the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered by the applicants. The report was submitted on 3 December 2001. 24.  On 25 September and 1 October 2002, respectively, the applicants commissioned a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor) to enforce the judgment against P. and S. terminating the leases under special legislation - the Enforcement Act (Law no. 233/1995 Coll., as amended). 25.  In the meantime the applicants withdrew their petitions of 1994 for enforcement by the District Court under the Code of the Civil Procedure. Consequently, on 18 October 2002, that enforcement was discontinued.