5.  The applicants are brothers. They were born in 1954 and 1956 and live in Neratovice (the Czech Republic) and Prešov (Slovakia) respectively. 6.  The applicants’ father owned a piece of real estate located in the centre of the city of Prešov, which comprised a plot of land and buildings standing on it. 7.  On their father’s death in 1964, the applicants each inherited half of that estate. 8.  The estate was subsequently seized by a State-owned enterprise and some of the buildings were torn down and new ones built. The new buildings included a garage. 9.  In the early 1990s the State-owned enterprise was privatised and transformed into a joint stock company. 10.  In 1992 the applicants brought an action for removal of the garage and vacant possession of their land. This action and its outcome is the main subject matter of the present application. The details are given below. 11.  In 2004 title to a portion of the real estate, which included the garage, was transferred from the joint-stock company to three individuals. Consequently, the action of 1992 was redirected against them. 12.  In 2005 the applicants brought another action seeking a judicial ruling declaring them to be the owners of the plot on which the garage was situated and of an adjacent plot. The action was directed against the three beneficiaries of the transfer of 2004 (see previous paragraph). 13.  On 27 September 2006, following a hearing held on the same day, at which the defendants acknowledged the applicants’ title, the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) allowed the action of 2005. 14.  On 15 November 2006, on the basis of the ruling of 27 September 2006, the applicants and the defendants settled their differences by exchanging title to the garage for title to the adjacent plot, under the judgment mentioned above, and by setting off their mutual financial claims, including those under the judgments mentioned below. 15.  On 27 February 1992 the applicants lodged an action with the District Court seeking a judicial order for removal of the garage and vacant possession of their land. 16.  The District Court ruled on the action on 13 December 1995 and 18 November 1997. These judgments were quashed on appeal (odvolanie) and the action was remitted by the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 16 April 1997 and the Prešov Regional Court on 22 November 1998 respectively. 17.  On 30 September 2005 the District Court ruled on the action anew. It relied on the above-mentioned decision of the Prešov Regional Court of 22 November 1998 in acknowledging that the applicants were the owners of the land on which the garage stood and that the garage had been constructed on that land without the consent of its owners. The garage was therefore considered an “unlawful construction”. It was not practicable (účelné) to remove the garage or to have the applicants take over title to it. The situation had to be resolved under Article 135c § 3 of the Civil Code by establishing an easement for the benefit of the owners of the garage and by ordering that they pay the applicants compensation in an amount equivalent to some 3,050 euros (EUR). The amount of compensation was determined on the basis of an expert assessment with reference to existing prices as opposed to future prices. 18.  On 11 April 2006 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 September 2005 following appeals by both the applicants and the defendants. The Regional Court fully endorsed the reasoning provided by the District Court, referred to previous judicial practice and held that in matters such as that at hand the courts were not bound to follow the parties’ specific requests, but rather had to resolve the matter within the parameters set by statute. 19.  On 6 June 2006 the applicants challenged the judgment of 11 April 2006 by way of an appeal on points of law (dovolanie). They relied on Article 237 (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and argued that the courts had wrongfully ruled on their action ultra petitum. In particular, the applicants argued that in litigious matters such as theirs the courts were bound by the plaintiffs’ formulation of the claims. The applicants had been seeking a ruling for removal of the garage or alternatively to have them established as the owners of the garage. However, the courts had made a ruling establishing an easement, which had not been sought. In addition, the applicants argued that the lower courts had failed to hear and examine all the evidence they had adduced. 20.  On 25 January 2007 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible. It upheld the Regional Court’s view that when dealing with “unlawful constructions” the courts were not bound by the specific requests made by the parties to the proceedings. A specific request for the situation to be resolved by way of establishing an easement had therefore not been required. The applicants did not have a right as such to have all evidence they adduced examined and taken into account. The appeal was thus not admissible on the ground identified by the applicants and neither was it admissible on any other ground envisaged by law. 21.  On 17 March 2005, following a complaint by the applicants under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that the District Court had violated their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and ordered that the District Court proceed with the case without delay. It awarded each applicant the equivalent of some EUR 515 in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 22.  On 6 June 2006 the applicants lodged a new constitutional complaint. They contested delays in the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 17 March 2005 and challenged the judgments of the District Court of 30 September 2005 and the Prešov Regional Court of 11 April 2006 as having treated them unequally. 23.  On 4 January 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It discerned no unjustified delays in the proceedings and rejected the relevant part of the application as manifestly ill-founded.
The Constitutional Court held that an appeal on points of law was a remedy that was available to the applicants, and observed that they had in fact used it (see paragraph 19 above). As it was still pending, that part of their constitutional complaint was premature. 24.  On 19 April 2007 the applicants lodged a fresh constitutional complaint. They relied, inter alia, on Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 and challenged the rulings of the Supreme Court of 25 January 2007 (see paragraph 20 above), the Prešov Regional Court of 11 April 2006 (see paragraph 18 above) and the District Court of 30 September 2005 (see paragraph 17 above) arguing that these rulings were incompatible with their property rights, of which they had failed to obtain protection. 25.  On 24 May 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It found that the complaint had been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit in so far as it concerned the rulings of the Prešov Regional Court of 11 April 2006 and the District Court of 30 September 2005. 26.  The complaint in respect of the decision of the Supreme Court of 25 January 2007 was manifestly ill-founded because that decision was not vitiated by any constitutionally relevant unlawfulness, arbitrariness or irregularity.
The written version of the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 25 January 2008.