5.  The applicants were employed by HK Komgrap ad Komgrap-Makiš doo, a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter “the debtor”). At the relevant time, the company was predominantly socially-owned. 6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations towards its employees, the applicants brought a civil claim seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions. 7.  On 23 June 2003 the Belgrade Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud u Beogradu) ordered the debtor to pay to the applicants certain sums in respect of salary arrears and various social security contributions. This judgment became final and enforceable on 25 July 2005. 8.  On 26 September 2005 the applicants applied to the Belgrade Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud u Beogradu) for enforcement of the judgment of 23 June 2003. 9.  On 18 January 2006 the said court ordered the enforcement of the judgment and awarded the applicants the costs incurred in the enforcement proceedings. 10.  The Government maintained that the debtor had been sold in 2007 to a private company. 11.  The applicants disagreed and claimed that it was, in fact, a different company that had been privatised in 2007. 12.  The Government submitted that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted in respect of the debtor on 22 July 2010 and had been terminated on 10 June 2013. 13.  The applicants disagreed and claimed that it was, in fact, a different company that went into bankruptcy in 2013. 14.  In their additional observations the Government submitted that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted in respect of the debtor on 24 July 2013 and had been terminated on 8 November 2013 when the decision to institute bankruptcy proceedings had been quashed. 15.  On 27 October 2010 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal, seeking redress for the non-enforcement of the judgment in question. 16.  On 27 November 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicants had suffered a breach of the “right to a trial within a reasonable time” with regard to the enforcement proceedings. The court, however, did not award them compensation for non-pecuniary damage, finding that only the period after the applicants had continued the enforcement proceedings following the death of their relatives (on 9 July 2013 and 15 May 2013, respectively) could be taken into account. 17.  On 27 November 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicants had suffered a breach of the “right to a trial within a reasonable time” with regard to the enforcement proceedings. The court ordered the acceleration of the proceedings and declared that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in the amount of EUR 800 each, converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. 18.  The Constitutional Court held that since the enforcement proceedings in question had not yet been completed, the constitutional appeals were premature in so far as they concerned pecuniary damage, and dismissed the appeals in that regard.