4.  The applicants were born in 1943, 1943 and 1944 and live in Dunavecse and Budapest, respectively. 5.  By a judgment of 30 June 1988 delivered by the Budapest Regional Court the applicants were registered as the inventors of a tool called the “sledge”. Their shares in the invention were 35%, 20% and 40%, respectively, leaving 5% to a fourth person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Court. 6.  On 5 October 1993 Mr Nagy and Mr Veizer brought an action before the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, against an agricultural co-operative. They sought royalties and requested that they be given possession of the tool. 7.  On 16 March and 25 May 1994 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date the court requested the defendant to submit certain documents. Having failed to comply with the order, on 16 September 1994 the court imposed a fine on the defendant. 8.  On 2 March 1995 the Regional Court heard the parties. 9.  On 9 March 1995 the Regional Court granted royalties and interest thereon to the plaintiffs and obliged the defendant to hand over the tool to Mr Veizer. 10.  On appeals of March 1995, on 29 May 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, heard several witnesses. On 11 September 1996 the Supreme Court, in a partial decision, confirmed the first-instance judgment concerning the return of the tool but quashed the remainder and remitted it to the Regional Court. 11.  Although the partial decision became final, the defendant failed to hand over the tool to Mr Veizer. The subsequent enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful. Consequently, Mr Nagy and Mr Veizer extended their action, claiming damages and unrealised profits resulting from the inability to use the tool. 12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 6 January 1997 the Regional Court appointed an expert engineer. He submitted his opinion on 17 March 1997 and amended it on 10 June 1997. 13.  The parties having failed to appear at the hearing on 14 October 1997, the Regional Court ordered the suspension of the proceedings. On Mr Veizer’s request of 29 January 1998 the proceedings were resumed. 14.  On 26 March and 9 June 1998 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date the court heard the expert and requested him to complete his opinion. 15.  On 2 September 1998 the Regional Court put further questions to the expert, to which he replied on 25 September 1998. At the hearing on 30 September 1998 the court requested the parties to submit their observations on the completed expert opinion. 16.  On 16 November 1998 the third applicant, Mrs Veizer, also brought an action on the same ground against the co-operative. Her action was joined to the remitted proceedings. 17.  The Regional Court held hearings on 3 and 24 March 1999. 18.  On 28 April 1999, the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court accepted part of the applicants’ claims. On 11 June 1999 the applicants appealed. 19.  On 14 November 2001, the Supreme Court, sitting as a second instance court, confirmed the first-instance judgment. This decision became final.