4.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1943 respectively and live in Beauvoir-sur-Niort, in France. 5.  In March 1995 the applicants were involved in a road traffic accident in Germany. The driver of the other car also resided in France where he had registered and insured his car. 6.  On 20 February 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the driver of the other car and his insurance company before the Landau Regional Court. They claimed pecuniary damages amounting to some 23,900 German marks (DEM) for both applicants as well as damages for pain and suffering (Schmerzensgeld). 7.  On 19 May 1998 the court granted them a two-week extension of the time-limit to make further submissions. On 29 May 1998 and on two further occasions the applicants extended their claims. 9.  On 17 September 1998 the Regional Court held an oral hearing in which the parties agreed to adjourn the proceedings until 29 October 1998. However, the hearing scheduled for 29 October 1998 had to be postponed to 26 November 1998 because of the judge's holidays. 10.  On 17 December 1998 the Regional Court commissioned a medical expert report for both applicants. After examining them on 28 April 1999 the Regional Court received the expert's report on 22 July 1999. 11.  On 27 October 1999, having been granted an extension of the time-limit by one month, the applicants submitted further comments on the expert report and requested the court to commission a supplementary report. 13.  On 19 June 2000 it reopened the proceedings and scheduled a further hearing for 13 July 2000, as the expert had used documents in his report which had not yet been introduced in the proceedings. It granted the parties two weeks to make their comments. At the applicant's request, the Court postponed the hearing to 11 September 2000. 14.  On 26 October 2000 the Regional Court ordered the defendants to pay the applicants pecuniary damages amounting to DEM 15,100 for both applicants and rejected their further claims. 15.  On 28 November 2000 the applicants appealed that judgment before the Zweibrücken Court of Appeal. 16.  On 16 January 2001, after having been granted a further extension of one month, the applicants submitted their statement of grounds. 17.  On 11 April 2001, after holding a hearing on 14 March 2001, the Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment. It remitted the case to the Regional Court and ordered the court to obtain an accident-related and biomechanical expert report (unfall- und biomechanische Gutachten) and a neurootologic expert report, and to apply French law instead of German law as both parties had stronger links to France than to Germany. 18.  On 6 December 2001 the Landau Regional Court informed the parties that according to the Court of Appeal it had been necessary to commission an interdisciplinary expert report on the circumstances of the accident and the injuries caused thereby. Thereafter a neurootologic expert report would be commissioned. It invited the parties to make their comments and to make suggestions as to the appointment of experts by 22 January 2002. 19.  After an extension of this time-limit the defendants made their comments on 27 February 2002. On 16 April 2002 the Regional Court ordered an interdisciplinary expert report. On 4 July 2002 it appointed the experts agreed upon by the parties after the applicants had paid the court fees and exempted the expert from complying with his obligation of confidentiality (Schweigepflicht). 20.  One of the interdisciplinary experts invited the applicants to present themselves for medical examinations and suggested appointment dates for August, September or November. Because of the applicant's illness they were able to attend only on 14 November 2002. On 9 May 2003 the experts submitted their interdisciplinary report. 21.  On 13 November 2003 the Regional Court requested the applicants to make a further advance on the costs for the forthcoming commissioning of a neurootologic expert report. On 18 December 2003, after the applicants had paid the advance on 10 December 2003, the Regional Court commissioned this report. On 12 May 2004 the expert examined the applicants. After addressing three reminders to him, the court received his report on 19 January 2005.  On 20 April 2005 the applicants submitted their comments on this report after having been granted a two-month extension of the time-limit. 22.  On 20 June 2005 the applicants paid the advance on further expert fees requested by the court on 11 May 2005 in order to hear the neurootologic expert.  On 28 June 2005 the court ordered the expert to submit written observations on the defendants' objections. On 17 October 2005 the expert's observations reached the court, which then invited the parties to make their comments by 2 November 2005. On 26 October 2005 the applicants requested two further weeks to make their comments, which was granted. 23.  On 28 November 2005 the Regional Court asked the parties whether they would prefer the commissioning of a psychological expert report first, or an expert report on the applicability of French law. On 19 December 2005 the parties informed the court that they wished to have the expert on the applicability of French law commissioned first. 24.  On 10 February 2006 the court declared that it would be too early to order an expert report on the applicability of French law, as the neurootologic expert had to supplement his report because he had not taken sufficiently into account the findings of a private expert report which the applicants had already submitted during the proceedings preceding the remittal. 25.  On 1 March 2006 the Regional Court ordered the neurootologic expert to supplement his report. On 19 September 2006 the court reminded him about the preparation of his report. However, the expert informed the court that the finalisation of his report would take until the end of the year because of the time-consuming procurement and assessment of the relevant literature. 26.  On 25 October 2006, in order to accelerate the proceedings, the court invited the parties to agree on the applicability of German law to the case which, however, the defendants refused. 27.  On 22 January 2007 the neurootologic expert submitted his supplementary report. On the applicants' request the time-limit to comment on this report was extended by one month, to 20 April 2007. 28.  On 4 May 2007 the court requested the applicants to pay a further advance on the fees for the preparation of a neuropsychological expert report and the expert report on French law. On 29 May 2007 the court appointed the experts. However, on 13 July 2007 the court had to appoint another neuropsychological expert as the other expert was ill. 30.  On 9 November 2007 the neuropsychological expert submitted his report, after examining the applicants on 14 September 2007. 31.  On 11 December 2007 the court held an oral hearing in which the parties agreed to stay the proceedings in view of pending extrajudicial friendly settlement negotiations between the parties. Moreover, the court informed the parties that there would be a further report of a medical expert specialised in French law on compensation for damages. 32.  On 6 March 2008 the defendants refused to enter into a friendly settlement and insisted on the commissioning of the above-mentioned expert report (see paragraph 31 above). Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed. 33.  On 23 April 2008 the Regional Court appointed the expert, who submitted his report in French on 27 January 2009. On 12 June 2009 the applicants received the German translation of the report. On the same day the Regional Court fixed the value in dispute at 320,000 euros (EUR).