5.  The applicants are former employees and heirs of former employees of company F. - C.M.E. S.A. (hereinafter “company F.”), which owned a factory making engines and electric alternators in Aveiro. The company experienced a series of financial problems in 1985, leading to it being unable to continue paying salaries to its staff.
6.  On 4 October 1994 the Coimbra Court of Appeal declared company F. insolvent. On 8 May 1995 the case was remitted to the Aveiro Court.
7.  By a decision that was made public on 3 July 1995 the Aveiro Court ordered that creditors wishing to declare their claims (reclamação de créditos) should be summoned.
8.  Having learnt that a site division and urban development plan (plano de pormenor) encompassing the land of company F. had been drawn up by the municipality of Aveiro, former employees of the company, including some of the applicants, applied to the Aveiro Court on 12 December 1997, requesting that it wait for the plan to be approved before ordering the sale of company F.’s assets. They hoped that the plan would lead to a rise in the land’s value and thus increase the prospects of their recovering what they were owed.
9.  On 24 March 2000 the Aveiro Court issued a decision on the classification of the various claims (sentença de graduação de créditos). Some of the creditors appealed against that decision to the Coimbra Court of Appeal.
10.  In a decision of 7 November 2000 the Aveiro Court authorised the suspension of the sale (see paragraph 8 above) until the approval of the site division and urban development plan.
11.  In a judgment of 23 January 2001 the Coimbra Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on the classification of the former employees’ claims. On 9 February 2001 the first applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice.
12.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant Rosa Rodrigues Casal (applicant no. 199 in the appended table) lodged an application with the Aveiro Court, seeking to register a claim against the insolvent company.
13.  On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment confirming the classification of claims by the Coimbra Court of Appeal (see paragraphs 9 and 11 above).
14.  On 27 November 2002 the judicial liquidator informed the Aveiro Court that he had suspended his activities following another court’s decision. In a decision of 29 January 2003 the court appointed a new liquidator.
15.  On 15 April 2009, as part of a redraft of the court-distribution map (setting out the geographical areas over which courts had jurisdiction), the proceedings were transferred to the Aveiro Commercial Court.
16.  On 29 July 2009 the municipality of Aveiro, the body of creditors and company G. entered into an agreement for the exchange of land between company F., company G., a neighbouring company, and the Aveiro municipality.
17.  On an unspecified date a part of the land measuring 17,629.10 sq. m and a separate plot were put up for sale.
18.  On 14 July 2011 a session at which offers to purchase could be made took place, and no offers were received. The court ordered the judicial liquidator to submit the documentation concerning that session and the proposal for sale within ten days.
19.  On 6 December 2011 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to provide information on the state of the proceedings.
20.  Since the judicial liquidator had not replied to the previous request, on 6 March 2012 the court ordered him to urgently provide information on the state of the proceedings, giving him a ten-day time-limit.
21.  In the absence of any reply to the two previous requests, on 17 April 2012 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to provide information on the state of the proceedings, and also ordered that he would be fined if he did not provide such a reply.
22.  On 23 April 2012 the judicial liquidator informed the court that no offers to purchase had been received, and he proposed to initiate contact with companies which specialised in the real-estate sector.
23.  On 2 May 2012 the court ordered the judicial liquidator to establish contact with real-estate companies, and gave him a ten-day time-limit.
24.  On 29 May 2012 the judicial liquidator informed the court that he had contacted some real-estate companies, but he requested ten more days in order to finalise the task. On 4 June 2012 he was informed that his request had been granted.
25.  On 12 June 2012 the judge ordered the judicial liquidator to draw up a report indicating the detailed amounts to be allocated to each creditor in the light of the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment (see paragraph 13 above).
26.  Following the Aveiro Commercial Court insisting that the judicial liquidator provide information on the progress regarding contact with real-estate companies by way of three notifications (sent to him on 27 September, 19 October and 19 November 2012), on 16 January 2013 he informed the court that only one real-estate company had expressed interest in mediating the sale of the property.
27.  On 6 March 2013 the court invited the judicial liquidator to initiate new contact with real-estate companies by email, since until then contact with the real-estate companies had been established in person.
28.  On 18 December 2013 the judicial liquidator informed the court that contact by email had been made with 119 real-estate companies, and offers to acquire the property were to be received until 15 January 2014. In the meantime, the court had sent him three notifications in that regard – on 21 May, 10 July and 11 November 2013.
29.  On 17 June 2014 the judicial liquidator replied to the 12 June 2012 court order (see paragraph 25 above). He informed the court that most former employees had not detailed the origin of their claims, and therefore it was not possible for him to provide a detailed plan on payment. On the same date the judicial liquidator informed the court that only three real-estate companies had replied and that those replies were negative. He then suggested that a new procedure for a sale by private agreement should be initiated, this time for 50% of the previously requested amount.
30.  In reply to the judicial liquidator’s information, on 11 July 2014 the judge ordered him to provide information on the amount already obtained as proceeds of the liquidation (produto da liquidação), by reference to real estate or movable property, in order to assess the practical effects of distributing those amounts among the creditors. As the judicial liquidator did not reply to that request, on 1 July 2015, 21 April 2016 and 13 June 2016 the court insisted that he do so.
31.  Meanwhile, on 30 September and 9 October 2015 the judicial liquidator was summoned in two sets of tax enforcement proceedings against company F.
32.  On 23 November 2016 the judicial liquidator informed the court of the two sets of tax enforcement proceedings which were ongoing.
33.  On 6 July 2017 the court notified the judicial liquidator that he should provide information on the state of the proceedings within ten days.
34.  On 1 September 2017 the court insisted that the judicial liquidator provide information on the state of the proceedings.
35.  On 20 September 2017 the judicial liquidator informed the court that a new tax issue was an obstacle in the insolvency proceedings.
36.  According to the latest information received by the Court on 21 May 2018, the insolvency proceedings were, on that date, still ongoing.
37.  On 11 September 1996 the applicants and other individuals (represented in the present case by their heirs) identified by numbers 1 to 131 in the Annex lodged an application with the Court to complain about the duration of the proceedings at issue before the Aveiro Court.
38.  In a judgment of 8 June 2000, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings, awarding each applicant the sum of 900,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE – about EUR 4,489) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and PTE 313,840 (about EUR 1,565) to the first applicant for costs and expenses.
39.  The just satisfaction was paid to the applicants on 11 and 12 December 2000.
40.  By Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)149 adopted on 8 June 2016 at the 1259th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers declared that it had exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention in respect of application no. 34422/97, and decided to close the examination of its enforcement.