8.  The applicants, Mr Eugene Weissman, Mrs Mariana Balan, Mrs Rosa Brener Veisman, Mrs Liana Alberta Veisman de Neuberger and Mrs Karin Weissman Humbert, were born in 1931, 1930, 1913, 1947 and 1937 respectively and live in Seattle, New York, Ariel (Israel) and Beaune (France). 9.  On 3 September 1998, acting in their capacity as heirs of the former owners, the applicants lodged an action before the Bucharest County Court against the State, represented by the Ministry of Finance, and the firm L., responsible for managing the State’s immovable property, with a view to the restitution of real estate, consisting of a building and the adjacent land situated at 21 Rabat Street, Bucharest, and occupied by the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany. They alleged that the State had appropriated the property in question in 1949 without title or any other legal authority, and that it had become part of the possessions of the Romanian Communist Party and, subsequently, of the firm L. 10.  In defence pleadings, included in the case file on 2 November 1998, the Ministry of Finance informed the court that the State had taken possession of the building without title, and that it had no papers certifying this transfer of ownership. At the court’s request, the Bucharest City Council replied that it too had no papers on this matter. The firm L. confirmed that it was managing the building under Government Decision no. 115/1990 on the legal situation of buildings which had belonged to the Romanian Communist Party. 11.  By a judgment of 14 April 1999, the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicants’ claim. It held that the State had taken possession of the building in 1949 without legal authority and that it continued to enjoy possession of it without title. It considered that Government Decision no. 115/1990 could not constitute valid title, given that there had been no legal basis for the appropriation itself. In consequence, it ordered the firm L. to return the building and adjacent land to the applicants. 12.  On an appeal (apel) and further appeal (recurs) by the respondent parties, the judgment was upheld by a judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 9 September 1999 and by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice on 22 March 2000. 13.  On 12 October 1999 the applicants were given possession of the building. 14.  By an action brought on 11 May 1999 in the Bucharest County Court against the Ministry of Finance, the Bucharest City Council and the firm L., the applicants sought reimbursement of 35,506,776 United States dollars (the equivalent of 30,609,289 euros (EUR)) in respect of loss of earnings, based on the rental income received by the State for the building since its confiscation, paid, inter alia, by the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had occupied the building from an unspecified date. 15.  At a hearing on 9 June 1999, the court ordered the applicants to pay stamp duty amounting to 5,333,215,000 Romanian lei (the equivalent of EUR 323,264), calculated in accordance with section 2 of Law no. 146/1997 on stamp duty. 16.  At a hearing on 8 September 1999, the applicants’ lawyer requested that they be exempted from stamp duty on the ground that the action for reimbursement of rental income was accessory to the action for recovery of possession and that it was therefore exempt from costs, in application of section 15 of Law no. 146/1997. 17.  By a judgment of 8 September 1999, the Bucharest County Court held that the action had been brought as independent proceedings and cancelled it on the ground that the applicants had failed to pay the stamp duty. 18.  On an appeal (apel) by the applicants, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the independent nature of the proceedings in a judgment of 12 January 2000. It ruled that an accessory action, which was exempt from stamp duty, was necessarily attached to a pending main action, but in this case a final judgment had already been delivered in respect of the applicants’ action for recovery of possession. 19.  On a further appeal (recurs) by the applicants, the Supreme Court of Justice, in a judgment of 21 April 2000, upheld the substance of the previous decisions. It added that the purpose of the two actions had been different, emphasising that the action for recovery of possession had enabled the applicants to have the building returned to them, while the purpose of the action for reimbursement of loss of earnings had been to recuperate rental income which they had not received.