5.  The applicants were born in 1985, 1988 and 1951, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár. Mr Krisztián Csősz and Mr Márk Adrián Csősz are the sons of Mr Barnabás Csősz, and the heirs of the latter's late wife (their mother), Mrs Virgília Csőszné Dőry, who was a plaintiff in the proceedings described below. 6.  Due to an injury, Mr Krisztián Csősz developed a deformation of his left leg. In 1994 and 1995 he underwent repeated orthopaedic surgery at Pécs University Teaching Hospital. Despite these efforts, his left leg remained some 5 cm shorter than the other, causing him a certain disability. 7.  On 17 April 1996 Mr Krisztián Csősz and his parents, Mr Barnabás Csősz and Mrs Virgília Csősz, filed an action in compensation against the University. They claimed that Mr Krisztián Csősz's disability was due to medical malpractice and that they had not been properly informed of the possible risks of the surgery proposed. On 21 May 1996 the University's insurer joined the proceedings as an intervening party. 8.  After three hearings, on 4 November 1998 the Baranya County Regional Court gave an interim decision, holding that the respondent was liable to pay compensation in the case, on account of the inadequate information given to the patient's parents prior to the surgery. The court relied on the opinion of an expert institution (the Semmelweis Medical University Institute of Forensic Medicine) dated 26 November 1996 and its supplement on 25 June 1997. It also based the decision on the supervisory expert opinion of the Forensic Committee of the Council of Medical Science (“ETT IB”) dated 3 March 1998, which contained a review of the medical documentation of the case and the conclusion that the treatment applied had been carried out lege artis medicinae, and a supplement dated 2 September 1998, the latter having been prepared in reply to a motion introduced by the applicants. 9.  On appeal, on 11 May 2000 the Supreme Court's appellate bench quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance court. It held that further evidence was to be taken in respect of the information given to the patient's parents prior to their consent to the surgery. 10.  On 26 June 2000 Mrs Virgília Csősz died and was succeeded in the proceedings by her two sons. 11.  On 9 March and 20 April 2001 the Regional Court held hearings. On 26 April 2001 it dismissed the action, holding that the surgery had not been unadvised in the circumstances, that it had been carried out respecting the rules of the medical profession and that the information provided to the patient's parents had been adequate. The court relied on the existing opinions of the expert institutions, documentary evidence and the testimonies of witnesses as to the oral information provided to the patient's parents about the risks. 12.  On 14 May 2003 the Supreme Court's appellate bench dismissed the applicants' appeal. It accepted the first instance court's reasoning concerning the adequacy of the treatment provided, which it endorsed as follows:
“[...] it had to be determined whether the requirement of maximum carefulness and circumspection was respected. Relying on the expert's opinion and on the supervisory opinion of the ETT IB, the first instance court reached the well-founded conclusion that this requirement was met in respect of the elected surgery, of the choice of the series of operations. ...
[...] altogether, to carry out the operation did not mean a greater risk than its omission. This was also shown by the ultimately good result. In respect of the plates and screws used in the surgery, the supervisory opinion of the ETT IB also showed unequivocally that the respondent had not committed any errors. In sum, no surgical malpractice was committed generating any tort liability.” 13.  Moreover, the Supreme Court confirmed the Regional Court's finding that the information given to the patient's parents had been adequate. 14.  On 9 December 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' petition for review in a 4½-page reasoned decision. It applied sections 270(2) and 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force in the relevant period, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if it was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law. Having reviewed the merits of the applicants' petition in detail, the Supreme Court was satisfied that this condition was not met in the circumstances. The decision was served on 13 January 2004. 15.  On 31 March 2004 the Regional Court rectified the decision of 26 April 2001. This decision was served on 5 April 2004.