5.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1947 respectively and live in the village of Sinemorets, on the southern Black Sea coast. 6.  The two of them have lived as a family since 1989. At that time, they resided in the town of Burgas, where the first applicant owned a flat, which in 2013 she donated to her daughter, who had lived in it with her family for a number of years. 7.  The first applicant’s father and mother owned a plot of 625 square metres in Sinemorets. Following the death of the first applicant’s father in 1986 and ensuing division-of-property proceedings between his surviving wife and seven children, the first applicant’s mother was allotted 250 out of the 625 shares in the plot. In 1999 she transferred those shares, together with the nine sixteenths of the plot to which she was otherwise entitled as a heir of her late husband, to the first applicant. Combining the shares that she obtained as a result of this transfer and the one sixteenth of the plot that she had inherited from her father, the first applicant became the owner of 484.43 shares, or 77.5%, of the plot. On the plot, there existed a dilapidated one-storey cabin. 8.  In 2004 the second applicant, who had been employed as a driver, suffered a myocardial infraction and was no longer able to work. In 2005 he was recognised as a disabled person and has since then been in receipt of a disability pension. At about that time, the two applicants moved from Burgas to Sinemorets, allegedly because they were no longer able to afford living in Burgas. They submitted that they put all their savings into the reconstruction of the cabin, converting it into a solid one-storey brick house. They did not apply for a building permit. The reconstruction took place in 2004-05. Since that time, the two applicants have lived in that house. In 2006 two of the other co-owners of the plot formally notified the first applicant that they did not agree with the reconstruction. According to the Government, there was evidence that the construction had not been finalised before 2009. 9.  In 2006 the other ten heirs of the first applicant’s father and mother brought a claim against the first applicant, seeking a judicial declaration that they were the owners of 140.57 of the 625 shares of the plot and of the house built on it. The Tsarevo District Court dismissed the claim. On an appeal by the claimants, on 7 June 2009 the Burgas Regional Court quashed that judgment and made a declaration in the terms sought by the claimants, finding that they were the owners of 140.57 out of the total of 625 shares of the plot and the house built in the place of the old cabin. It also held that the first applicant was the owner of the remaining 484.43 shares of the plot and the house. The first applicant attempted to appeal on points of law, but in a decision of 22 June 2009 (опр. № 566 от 22.06.2009 г. по гр. д. № 1974/2009 г., ВКС, I г. о.), the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to admit the appeal for examination. In so doing, it held, inter alia, that by including the house in the declaration, the lower court had not erred because it was settled case-law that illegal buildings could be the objects of the right to property. 10.  For most of the year, the first applicant is unemployed. Her only source of income comes from servicing vacation houses in Sinemorets during the late spring and summer. The second applicant inherited shares of several plots of land in another village, which he sold for a total of 1,200 Bulgarian levs (614 euros) in 2012-14. The applicants used the money to buy a second-hand car. 11.  In September 2011, prompted by some of the other co-owners of the plot, municipal officers inspected the house and found that it had been constructed illegally. They notified their findings to the first applicant in October 2011. In July 2012 the municipality brought the matter to the attention of the regional office of the National Building Control Directorate. In October 2012 that office advised the first applicant that it had opened proceedings for the demolition of the house. In November 2012 officers of the Directorate inspected it and likewise found that it was illegal as it had been constructed without a building permit. 12.  On 30 September 2013 the head of the regional office of the Directorate noted that the house had been constructed in 2004-05 without a building permit, in breach of section 148(1) of the Territorial Organisation Act 2001, and was as such subject to demolition under section 225(2)(2) of that Act (see paragraphs 25 and 26 below). The first applicant had not put forward any arguments or evidence to show otherwise. The house was therefore to be demolished. Once the decision had become final, the first applicant was to be invited to comply with it voluntarily. If she failed to do so in good time, the authorities would enforce it at her expense. 13.  The first applicant sought judicial review of that decision. 14.  On 10 December 2014 the Burgas Administrative Court dismissed the claim. It held that the decision was lawful. The evidence clearly showed that the applicants had constructed the house in 2004-05 without obtaining a building permit, which under section 225(2)(2) of the 2001 Act (see paragraph 26 below) was grounds for its demolition. The house could not be exempted from demolition under paragraph 16 of the transitional provisions of the 2001 Act or paragraph 127 of the transitional and concluding provisions of a 2012 Act for the amendment of the 2001 Act (see paragraphs 28 and 29 below). 15.  The first applicant appealed. She submitted, inter alia, that the house was her only home and that its demolition would cause her considerable difficulties as she would be unable to secure another place to live. 16.  In a final judgment of 17 March 2015 (реш. № 2900 от 17.03.2015 г. по адм. д. № 1381/2015 г., ВАС, II о.), the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It agreed that the house was illegal as it had been constructed without a building permit, that it was as such subject to demolition, and that, having been constructed in 2004-05, it could not be legalised under the transitional amnesty provisions of the 2001 Act or the 2012 Act. 17.  On 15 April 2015 the regional office of the National Building Control Directorate invited the first applicant to comply with the demolition order within fourteen days of receiving notice to do so, and advised her that failure to do so would prompt it to enforce the order at her expense. 18.  As the first applicant did not do so, on 6 August 2015 that office made a call for tenders from private companies willing to carry out the demolition; the deadline for submitting such offers was 15 September 2015. 19.  On 18 August 2015 the Burgas Municipal Ombudsman urged the Minister of Regional Development to halt the demolition on the basis that, although formally lawful, it would have a disproportionate impact on the applicants. In response, on 25 September 2015 the Directorate’s regional office reiterated its intention to proceed with the demolition. 20.  After the Government were given notice of the application (see paragraph 4 above), on 15 October 2015 the Directorate’s regional office asked the municipal authorities to explore whether, if necessary, they could provide alternative accommodation for the first applicant. Until 27 October 2015, date of the latest information from the parties on that point, the municipal authorities had not replied to that query, and the Directorate’s regional office had for that reason not proceeded with the demolition. 21.  On an unspecified date in the second half of October 2015, again after notice of the application had been given to the Government, a social worker interviewed the first applicant and explained to her the possibilities to request social services. The first applicant stated that she was not interested in that because she preferred to remain in the house. 22.  According to a register available on the website of the National Building Control Directorate (link), on 10 March 2016 the demolition had not yet been carried out.