4.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lived in Ljubljana. He died in 2008. 5.  On 1 September 1970 a decision by which the applicant’s house was expropriated in favour of the Municipality of Ljubljana became final. 6.  In 1971, the municipality instituted non-contentious court proceedings to determine the amount of compensation due for the expropriated property. The applicant was a party to those proceedings. 7.  By 1988, the first-instance court had ruled on the matter four times due to three remittals of the case by the second-instance court. The last judgment of the first-instance court, issued on 15 July 1988, was quashed by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 2 March 1989. The latter found that the facts had been insufficiently established. It ordered a re-examination of the case by the first-instance court. 8.  In 1989 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of another set of proceedings in which the applicant challenged the validity of the expropriation. After a series of hearings cancelled at the request of the applicant, who maintained that other related sets of proceedings were still pending, the court again suspended the present set of proceedings. At a hearing on 5 April 2004 the applicant’s daughter, who was representing the applicant in the proceedings, informed the court that the denationalisation proceedings no. UE 351-307/93 concerning the real estate, apparently comprising the house in question and the land on which it was situated, were still ongoing. In September 2004 a hearing was cancelled as the case was being transferred to another judge. The latter took over the case in December 2005. 9.  Hearings were held on 30 March and 20 April 2006. At a hearing of 8 June 2006 the applicant submitted, inter alia, that his claim for compensation with respect to the denationalisation of the same property was still pending before the Administrative Court. 10.  On 7 June 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, complaining of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time. On 11 December 2007 the Court declared the application inadmissible, finding that the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Jama v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 29978/06). 11.  In the meantime, at the hearing of 14 November 2007, the Ljubljana Local Court established that the proceedings concerning compensation with respect to the denationalisation of the property were pending before the Supreme Court. On 25 February 2008 the latter proceedings were terminated with a decision by which the applicant received compensation comprising state certificates for the nationalised land. His request for denationalisation of the house situated on that land was rejected. 12.  On 21 February 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ljubljana Local Court. On 13 March 2008 the court informed the applicant that a hearing had been scheduled in his case. 13.  At the hearing of 10 April 2008 the court established that the termination of the denationalisation proceedings had made it possible to continue the present set of proceedings concerning compensation for the expropriated house. The court appointed an expert in construction to prepare a report on the matter. 14.  On 19 September 2008 the court issued a decision setting out the questions which the expert was requested to examine. 15.  In the meantime, on 29 July 2008, the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal asking the court to inform him of the date on which the proceedings would be terminated. On 22 August 2008 the court explained to the applicant that an expert had been appointed in order to prepare a report in the case. 16.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline. 17.  On 19 October 2008 the applicant died at the age of 94. Subsequently, his daughter, Mrs M. Preželj, expressed the wish to continue the proceedings before the Court initiated by him. 18.  The expert, who had been hospitalised and had undergone heart surgery in the meantime, submitted his report on 25 March 2010. 19.  On 13 January 2011 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a new expert. At that hearing the court also requested the applicant’s representative to inform the court of the applicant’s successors. On 24 February 2011 the representative submitted the requested documents. The inheritance decision of 7 May 2010 showed that the applicant’s daughter, M. Preželj, had been named by the applicant as the only person to manage his estate and inherit his property after his death. She was also appointed as an executor of the will and requested to take over all the applicant’s pending proceedings concerning the denationalization of and compensation for the expropriated house. Three remaining next-of-kin were given a certain share in accordance with inheritance law. The applicant’s representative was now his daughter’s representative in the proceedings. 20.  On 6 June 2011 the applicant’s daughter’s representative lodged a supervisory appeal complaining about the delays in the proceedings and pointing out that he had received no reply to the motion for a deadline. 21.  On 8 June 2011 the applicant’s daughter’s representative submitted pleadings in which he argued that there had been no reason for the other successors to enter the proceedings, as the power of attorney given to him by the applicant had not been contested by any of them. In addition, he argued that by virtue of the inheritance decision the applicant’s daughter was authorised to take part in the pending proceedings concerning the applicant’s property and to bring them to an end. 22.  On 1 July 2011 the President of the Ljubljana Local Court sent the applicant’s daughter’s representative a report outlining the major events that had occurred in the proceedings. It was noted in the report that the judge in the case had instructed her assistant lawyer to appoint a new expert. 23.  On 9 September 2011 the President of the Ljubljana Higher Court sent a letter to the applicant’s daughter’s representative in which he noted that the motion for a deadline of 1 September 2008 had been referred to him only three days earlier. He further informed him that the motion had been granted and that the first-instance judge had been instructed to treat this case with priority and to provide him with a progress report every three months.