9.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1942, 1948 and 1962 respectively. They are farmers living in Stumm (Austria). 10.  On 7 July 1966 the Tirol Regional Government as the Agricultural Authority of First Instance (Landesregierung als Agrarbehörde erster Instanz - “the Agricultural Authority”) instituted land consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) involving property belonging to the first applicant, the second applicant’s mother, the third applicant and the fourth applicant’s father. 11.  On 18 December 1974 the Agricultural Authority ordered the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensatory parcels (Grundabfindung). 12.  On 28 December 1980 the municipal council amended the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) re-designating agricultural land which had, before 1974, belonged to the first applicant, the second applicant’s mother and to the fourth applicant’s father, as building land. 13.  In February 1988 the second applicant took over his mother’s farm. 14.  On 28 July 1988 the consolidation scheme (Zusammenlegungsplan) was issued by the Agricultural Authority confirming the situation created by the provisional transfer. 15.  On 16 September 1988 the third applicant appealed against the consolidation scheme. The first and second applicants as well as the fourth applicant’s father did so on 19 September 1988. 16.  In May, June and October 1989, the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - “the Provincial Board”), sitting in camera, held hearings on these appeals. Subsequently, the fourth applicant took over his father’s farm. 17.  On 26 November 1990 all four applicants filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - “the Supreme Board”), which the latter dismissed on 27 February 1991. 18.  On 18 April 1991 the Provincial Board, after having held a hearing in camera, dismissed the first applicant’s appeal. 19.  On 3 June 1991 the first applicant filed complaints with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). In the complaint to the Administrative Court he requested that a public oral hearing be held. 20.  On 25 November 1991 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case and referred it to the Administrative Court. 21.  On 16 November 1993 the Administrative Court requested the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of section 15 § 1 of the Tirol Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungslandesgesetz), which provides that changes in value which occur after the provisional transfer cannot be taken into account in the determination of compensation. 22.  On 13 October 1995 the Constitutional Court found that section 15 § 1 of the Tirol Land Planning Act was in conformity with the Constitution. 23.  On 28 February 1996 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint rejecting at the same time, in accordance with section 39 § 2 (6) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungs-gerichtshofgesetz), the applicant’s request for a hearing. 24.  The Administrative Court found in particular that the calculation of compensation as regards the plots of land transferred to the municipality for building a street, had been carried out in a detailed and comprehensible manner and confirmed that the said compensation was in accordance with the relevant law. The decision was served on 24 May 1996. 25.  On 18 April 1991 the Provincial Board, after having held a hearing in camera, dismissed the second applicant’s appeal as being unfounded. 26.  On 3 June 1991 the second applicant filed complaints with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. 27.  On 25 November 1991 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case and referred it to the Administrative Court. 28.  On 16 November 1993 the Administrative Court requested the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of section 15 § 1 of the Tirol Land Planning Act. 29.  On 13 October 1995 the Constitutional Court found that section 15 § 1 of the Tirol Land Planning Act was in conformity with the Constitution. 30.  On 28 February 1996 the Administrative Court quashed the Provincial Board’s decision as far as the second applicant was concerned. It found that the Provincial Board had not given sufficient reasons for calculating the size of a particular part of the applicant’s property involved in the land consolidation proceedings. In this respect, the lawfulness of the compensation could not be assessed. 31.  On 25 July 1996 the Provincial Board, after having held a public hearing, rejected the second applicant’s appeal against the consolidation scheme as being inadmissible. It noted that the second applicant and his mother had concluded a contract of transfer of land on 5 February 1988. However, the request to enter the contract into the land register had only been lodged with the competent court on 19 November 1991. Consequently, the second applicant had not been the legal owner of the land at issue and had not been entitled to file an appeal in 1988. 32.  On 11 September 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court arguing in particular that he had been the legal owner of the land already in 1988 and, therefore, had been entitled to file an appeal. 33.  On 9 June 1997 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint and transferred it to the Administrative Court. On 6 October 1997 and on 20 November 1997, respectively, the applicant and the Provincial Board filed further comments. 34.  On 10 December 1998 the Administrative Court dismissed the second applicant’s complaint, confirming the reasoning of the Provincial Board. The decision was served on 22 January 1999. 35.  On 18 April 1991 in the case of the third applicant and on 20 June 1991 in the case of the fourth applicant, the Provincial Board - in both cases having held a hearing in camera - partly dismissed their appeals. The third applicant appealed in May 1991 and the fourth applicant in July 1991. 36.  On 7 October 1992 the Supreme Board dismissed the applicants’ further appeals. It found that the transfer of property to the municipality for building a street was in accordance with the law and that the applicants had been duly compensated. 37.  On 21 December 1992 the third applicant, and on 21 January 1993 the fourth applicant, filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court which transferred their appeals to the Administrative Court on 15 June 1993. 38.  On 14 December 1995 and on 21 May 1996, respectively, the Administrative Court quashed the Supreme Board’s decision on the ground that the latter had given insufficient reasons for its calculation of compensation. 39.  On 6 November 1996 the Supreme Board, having held a public hearing, partly dismissed the applicants’ appeals. 40.  On 31 January 1997 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court which, on 16 June 1997, transferred both cases to the Administrative Court. 41.  On 26 February 1998 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ complaints. The Administrative Court found in particular that the Supreme Board had carried out the calculation of compensation in a detailed and comprehensible manner and confirmed its finding that the said compensation was in accordance with the relevant law. The decision was served on 18 March 1998.