4.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1946 respectively and live in the town of Kireyevsk of the Tula Region. They are relatives. 5.  On 23 October 1992 the second applicant lodged an action against her former husband, claiming division of their marital property, including a country house. 6.  On 29 December 1993 the Kireyevskiy District Court of the Tula Region ordered the equitable distribution of property. The judgment was quashed on 26 April 1994 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination. 7.  On 14 June 1994 the Kireyevskiy District Court transferred the case to the Tsentralniy District Court and on 10 July 1995 the Tsentralniy District Court partly accepted the action. On 16 May 1996 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 8.  On 10 January 1997 the first applicant entered the proceedings in the capacity of a co-plaintiff. In September 1998 the applicants' amended their claim. 9.  According to the Government, after September 1998 the District Court listed several hearings which were adjourned because the defendant defaulted and the District Court had to summons additional witnesses. 10.  In 1999 the applicants complained to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Tula Regional Judicial Qualification Board about the excessive length of the proceedings. On 13 April 1999 the Tula Regional Judicial Qualifications Board informed the applicants that the excessive length had been caused by the complexity of the case, a large amount of cases pending before the court and the parties' failure to attend hearings. The Board also noted that the presiding judge had been asked to observe the time-limits. 11.  On 4 December 2000 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the decision of 14 June 1994 and transferred the case back to the Kireyevskiy District Court for further examination. 12.  On 25 December 2000 the Kireyevskiy District Court received the case-file. On the same day the applicants asked for a stay in the proceedings because they had complained about the decision of 4 December 2000 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The proceedings were resumed in February 2001 after the Supreme Court had refused to quash the decision of 4 December 2000. 13.  By a decision of 18 December 2001 the Kireyevskiy District Court severed the applicants' claims concerning the common household and decided to examine them in a separate set of the proceedings. On 3 April 2002 the District Court dismissed those claims. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 14 April 2002. 14.  On 23 July 2002 the Kireyevskiy District Court examined the remaining claims and partly accepted the applicants' action. The Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment in the part concerning the division of the country house and remitted the case for a new examination on 14 November 2002. 15.  The Kireyevskiy District Court fixed a preparatory hearing for 17 March 2003. Of the six hearings listed between 1 April 2003 and 28 April 2004, four hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not attend and two were adjourned upon the applicants' requests awaiting the outcome of the related proceedings. 16.  On 30 April 2004 the District Court discovered that the defendant had died on 17 April 2004. The proceedings were stayed for determination of a successor. The Kireyevskiy District Court resumed the proceedings on 1 April 2005 as the defendant's daughter, Ms K., entered the proceedings on his behalf. 17.  On 25 April 2005 the District Court asked Ms K. to provide certain evidence related to the inheritance procedure. The District Court set the time-limit until 15 June 2005. 18.  The proceedings were stayed again on 23 June 2005 because the Kireyevskiy District Court had discovered certain deficiencies in inheritance documents provided by Ms K. 19.  On 28 November 2005 the District Court resumed the proceedings and ordered an expert study. The expert fees were to be paid by the Federal Treasury. The decision of 28 November 2005 was upheld on appeal, subject to certain amendments. 20.  The case-file was sent to the experts on 16 January 2006. In March 2006 the experts asked the Kireyevskiy District Court for additional materials. On 15 March 2006 the District Court provided the experts with the necessary documents. 21.  It appears that the proceedings are at present pending before the Kireyevskiy District Court.