5.  The first and third applicants were born in 1941, the second applicant was born in 1974, and the fourth applicant was born in 1967. The first, second and third applicants live in Kazanlak and the fourth applicant lives in Sofia. 6.  Ms Maria Kopankova and her grandson, the fourth applicant (son of the first applicant) co-owned a house with a garden in Kazanlak. At the time Ms Maria Kopankova lived in the house with her two sons, the first applicant and Mr Kancho Kopankov, and their families, which included the remaining applicants (the second and third applicants are Mr Kancho Kopankov’s wife and son). 7.  By a decision of the town mayor of 18 July 1988 the property was expropriated under the Territorial and Urban Planning Act with a view to constructing a residential building. The decision stated that each of the two owners (Ms Maria Kopankova and the fourth applicant) were to be compensated with a flat in a building which the municipality planned to construct. 8.  After the expropriation the municipal authorities opened a blocked housing savings account with the State Savings Bank in the name of Ms Maria Kopankova and the fourth applicant and transferred to it 13,420 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) – the equivalent of the expropriated property’s value as assessed at the time. 9.  In 1989 Ms Maria Kopankova and the applicants were moved out of the expropriated property and the house was pulled down. Construction work started on the plot of land and the foundations of a future building were laid. However, the site was soon after that abandoned. 10.  Throughout the years that followed Ms Maria Kopankova and the applicants petitioned on many occasions the municipal authorities to provide them with the compensation due, but to no avail. The mayor never took a decision specifying the exact future flats to be offered in compensation (see paragraph 20 below). 11.  In 1998 Ms Maria Kopankova passed away and was succeeded by her sons, the first applicant and Mr Kancho Kopankov. The latter passed away in 2011 and was succeeded by the second and third applicants. 12.  On 16 February 2009 the applicants and Mr Kancho Kopankov made a request to the mayor under section 9(2) of the transitional provisions of the Territorial Planning Act of 2001 (hereinafter “section 9(2)”) for the revocation of the expropriation order of 18 July 1988. As no response followed, they applied for judicial review of the mayor’s tacit refusal. 13.  The Stara Zagora Administrative Court (hereinafter “the Administrative Court”) gave a judgment on 27 May 2010. It found, firstly, that the fourth applicant and Ms Maria Kopankova, and subsequently her heirs, had not received the compensation due to them, namely two flats. It pointed out in this connection that the transfer of money to a blocked housing savings account in their name (see paragraph 8 above) was not equivalent to the provision of compensation. The Administrative Court found further that the authorities had not “taken possession” of the applicants’ property, within the meaning of section 9(2), because there had been no formal decision to take possession (as had been required at the time), and because in any event the construction work which had started on the plot had eventually been abandoned. Thus, the preconditions for the revocation of the 1988 expropriation under section 9(2) had been fulfilled. On that basis the Administrative Court quashed the mayor’s tacit refusal and revoked the expropriation order. 14.  The judgment above was not appealed against and became final. 15.  In 2011 the applicants brought a tort action against the Kazanlak municipality under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 23 below). They claimed the value of the house and of other objects (such as trees, the pavement and outbuildings) which had stood on the plot of land and had been destroyed, but for which they had never received any compensation. The applicants also made claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 16.  In the context of the ensuing proceedings the Administrative Court, examining the case, appointed experts, who estimated the value of the house and the remaining objects at 37,868 new Bulgarian levs (BGN – the equivalent of approximately 19,370 euros (EUR)). 17.  In a decision of 26 January 2012 the Administrative Court found the applicants’ claims inadmissible and refused to examine them on the merits. It reasoned that the applicants’ situation had been regulated by sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the transitional provisions of the Territorial Planning Act of 2001 (see paragraph 22 below, hereinafter “section 9(1)” and “section 9(2)”), and that the existence of such a special avenue of redress meant that the general tort provisions of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act did not apply. 18.  These conclusions were upheld in a final decision of 20 April 2012 of the Supreme Administrative Court, which added that since the expropriation of the applicants’ property had been quashed and the expropriation proceedings completed, the municipality could not be liable for any damage stemming from these proceedings. It pointed out in addition that the applicants’ claims did not fall to be examined by the civil courts, under the general rules of tort, and that the administrative courts remained competent to examine them, even though the claims were inadmissible. It thus refused to apply Article 135 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (see paragraph 25 below) and transfer the case to the civil courts, as the applicants had requested.