4.  The applicants were born in 1944, 1964 and 1966 respectively and live in Razgrad. 5.  The first applicant and H.P., her husband and father of the other two applicants, owned a house with a yard and garage in Razgrad. 6.  By a decision of the mayor of 28 June 1988 the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a residential building. The decision, based on section 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), provided that the first applicant and H.P. were to be compensated with a flat and a garage. 7.  By a supplementary decision of 24 July 1991, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, size and other details in respect of the garage to be offered in compensation, which was to be located in a residential building which the municipality planned to construct. The first applicant and H.P. had to pay for the cost of the garage that was not covered by the value of their expropriated property 4,479 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). It appears that at the time they did not pay that sum, which has since then devalued significantly. 8.  On unspecified dates the flat due to be given to first applicant and H.P. was constructed and delivered to them. The expropriated house and garage were pulled down. 9.  In 1996 the mayor of Razgrad offered the first applicant and H.P. a garage in another part of the city. They refused the offer. 10.  The building where the garage offered to them was to be situated was never constructed. In 2006 the municipality authorised the construction of another building by a private investor in the same place, which did not include garages. 11.  In a letter dated 18 August 2006 the mayor advised the first applicant and H.P. that they could request financial compensation for their expropriated property in lieu of compensation with a garage. In reply, they stated that they did not want such compensation and insisted on receiving a garage. 12.  In February 2009 H.P. passed away and was succeeded by the three applicants. 13.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicants brought an action in tort, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the allegedly unlawful failure on the part of the Razgrad municipality to build and provide them with a garage. The action was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in a final judgment on 16 November 2011. It noted that the municipality had not acted unlawfully and had offered various solutions which the first applicant and her husband had rejected.