5.  In 1951 the State authorities took more than three hectares of land from a relative of the applicants. No compensation was paid to the owner. 6.  The applicants unsuccessfully claimed restitution of the land under Law no. 503/2003. In particular, in a judgment of 13 December 2006 the Supreme Court held, in a review of the decisions made at lower levels of jurisdiction, that the land had been formally transferred to the State pursuant to Ordinance 15/1959. Section 3 of Law no. 503/2003 did not include such a situation as grounds for restitution of property. The applicants could have claimed restitution of the land earlier, under Law no. 403/1990, but they had not done so. 7.  On 23 April 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and also of their constitutional right to own property. 8.  In particular, the applicants argued that the land had been expropriated without compensation. It was therefore liable to restitution under section 3(1)(m) and (n) of Law no. 503/2003, irrespective of the fact that that law contained no reference to Ordinance 15/1959. They referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment 3SžoKS 130/2005 of 9 June 2006, which found that a situation similar to that of the applicants fell under Law no. 503/2003. 9.  On 25 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint (decision III. ÚS 287/07). It held that the Supreme Court had given sufficient reasons for its judgment, which was neither arbitrary nor otherwise contrary to the constitutional principles. It was not for the Constitutional Court to review the way in which ordinary courts interpreted and applied the law unless it resulted in a breach of the Constitution. 10.  The decision was served on 18 December 2007.