6.  Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of the excessive length of enforcement proceedings.
7.  The circumstances of the cases as presented by the parties may be summarized as follows.
8.  Between 18 December 2000 and 16 April 2003, the first, second, third and fourth applicants lodged separate civil complaints with the Čačak Municipal Court (Opštinski sud u Čačku) against the same socially owned‑company, Akcionarsko društvo Fabrika reznog alata Čačak, requesting the payment of salary related damages.
9.  On 26 December 2007, the Čačak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants.
10.  On 30 July 2008 Čačak District Court (Okružni sud u Čačku) upheld this judgment on appeal.
11.  On 31 March 2009 the applicants lodged a joined enforcement request which was accepted by Čačak Municipal Court on 2 April 2009.
12.  On 22 June 2005 the fifth applicant lodged her civil complaint with the Čačak Municipal Court against Akcionarsko društvo Fabrika reznog alata Čačak requesting the payment of an allowance.
13.  On 21 April 2008 the Čačak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fifth applicant. In the absence of an appeal, this judgment subsequently became final.
14.  On 27 October 2009 the fifth applicant lodged an enforcement request which was accepted by Čačak Municipal Court on 28 October 2009.
15.  On 27 August 2003 the sixth applicant lodged her civil complaint with the Čačak Municipal Court against Akcionarsko društvo Fabrika reznog alata Čačak requesting the payment of salary related damages.
16.  On 24 April 2008 the Čačak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the sixth applicant.
17.  On 29 October 2008 the Čačak District Court upheld this judgment on appeal.
18.  On 31 December 2008 the sixth applicant lodged an enforcement request which was accepted by Čačak Municipal Court on 08 January 2009.
19.  On 22 April 2003 the seventh applicant lodged his civil complaint with the Čačak Municipal Court against Akcionarsko društvo Fabrika reznog alata Čačak requesting the payment of salary related damages.
20.  On 11 November 2008 the Čačak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the seventh applicant. In the absence of an appeal, this judgment subsequently became final.
21.  On 9 April 2009 the seventh applicant lodged an enforcement request which was accepted by Čačak Municipal Court on 4 February 2010.
22.  Since the judgment rendered in favour of the applicants remained unenforced, on 24 February 2014, the sixth and the seventh applicants and on 19 May 2014, the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants, lodged their appeals with the Constitutional Court.
23.  In so doing, the applicants complained about the length of enforcement proceedings in question and the ultimate non-enforcement.
24.  Pursuant to the Amendments to Court Organization Act (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o uređenju sudova; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 101/13) the complaint concerning the length of proceedings was transmitted to the Kragujevac Court of Appeal which then itself forwarded the matter to the Čačak High Court (Viši sud u Čačku), i.e. the former Čačak District Court.
25.  On 27 January 2015 the Čačak High Court found that the first, second, third and fourth applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded them 200 euros (EUR) each in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings.
It, further, ordered the Čačak Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u Čačku), i.e. the former Čačak Municipal Court, to speed up the enforcement proceedings and enforce the judgment rendered in the applicants’ favour.
26.  On 11 February 2015 the applicants complained to the Supreme Court of Cassation claiming that the compensation awarded was too low and, accordingly, inadequate for the violation found. On 26 March 2015 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeals.
27.  On 14 January 2015 the Čačak High Court found that the fifth applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded her EUR 100 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings. It also ordered to the Čačak Court of First Instance to speed up the proceedings and enforce the judgment.
28.  On 2 February 2015 the fifth applicant complained to the Supreme Court of Cassation of the insufficient redress. Her appeal, however, was rejected on 22 April 2015.
29.  On 2 December 2014 the Čačak High Court found that the sixth applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded her EUR 300 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings. Her appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation concerning the amount of the compensation awarded was rejected on 6 May 2015.
30.  On 20 February 2015 the Čačak High Court found that the seventh applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded him EUR 80 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation concerning the amount of the compensation awarded was rejected on 19 May 2015.
31.  Between 3 August 2015 and 30 December 2015 all applicants lodged new appeals with the Constitutional Court.
32.  They complained, inter alia, about the failure of domestic authorities to enforce the final judgments rendered in their favour, and that the amount of compensation awarded by the competent courts in respect of the breach of their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been too low.
33.  Between 12 May 2016 and 9 June 2016 the Constitutional Court found that due to the failure of domestic authorities to enforce the judgments rendered in the applicants’ favour their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions had, indeed, also been violated. The Constitutional Court, accordingly, awarded the applicants with pecuniary damages in the amounts granted by the judgments that had remained unenforced.
34.  However, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ complaints concerning the insufficient redress as regards the violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time since it considered the awards given by the domestic courts as reasonable compensation for the violations found.
35.  The Constitutional Court lastly emphasized that, in any event and due to the changes in legislation, it could not have assessed the specific reasons for the amounts awarded by other courts in this respect.