4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1952, 1965, and 1921 respectively and live in Perugia, Fano, and (the third and fourth applicant) in Lecce, respectively. 5.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicants are the owners of a plot of land in Galatina. The land in issue, an area of 6,241 square metres, was recorded on the land register as folio no. 76, parcel no. 29. 7.  On 10 July and 9 August 1985 respectively, the Mayor of Galatina issued two decrees authorising the Municipality to take possession, under an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, of 560 and 894 square metres of land in order to begin the construction of low-rent housing. 8.  By two writs served, respectively, on 17 September and 8 October 1990, the applicants brought actions in damages against the Galatina Municipality before the Lecce District Court. The applicants alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land as well as compensation for the area of land that had become unusable as a result of the building work. They further claimed a sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation. 9.  On 13 November 1991 and 15 January 1992, the court ordered two expert assessments of the land in connection with the two sets of proceedings. 10.  On 22 November 1996 the applicants submitted a motion pursuant to Article 186 quater of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure requesting that the court issue an order for the immediate payment of the requested compensation by the Municipality. 11.  On 13 December 1996 the court concluded that sufficient evidence existed for it to proceed with the order. The court granted the motion and merged the two sets of proceedings.  By means of an order delivered on the same day, the Lecce District Court drew on the expert reports to conclude that the market value of the land on the date of its irreversible alteration (31 December 1985) corresponded to ITL 355 000 000 (EUR 342,199). On this basis, the court ordered that the applicant was entitled to compensation equivalent to the latter sum, adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest, for a total amount of ITL 600 000 000 (EUR 309 874,139). The claim concerning the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation was dismissed. 12.  The order was served on the Galatina Municipality on 24 March 1997 and thereupon became immediately enforceable. 13.  In April 1997 the Municipality submitted a motion, pursuant to Article 186 quater of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, expressing their intention to waive the delivery of the final judgment (“rinuncia alla pronuncia della sentenza definitiva”). The motion was served on the applicants on 4 April 1997 and filed with the registry on 31 May 1997. By virtue of the foregoing provision, once the motion is served and filed with the registry, the order becomes final and can, therefore, be subject to appeal. 14.  On 2 June 1997 the Municipality appealed against the order before the Lecce Court of Appeal, their main contention being that the portion of land subject to expropriation was actually less than the size identified in the Lecce District Court’s order. The Municipality, therefore, requested that a new expert valuation be submitted and that the Court of Appeal recalculate the final sum to be awarded to the applicants under Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime. The Municipality further requested a stay of execution of the Lecce District Court’s order. 15.  On 4 June 1997 the applicants lodged a cross-appeal arguing that the appeal proceedings should be declared null and void on the ground, inter alia, that the application of Article 186 quater of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure entailed a violation of their defense rights. The applicants also sought the dismissal of the Municipality’s appeal on the ground that it was manifestly ill-founded. No claim concerning the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation was raised. 16.  On 30 July 1997 the Lecce Court of Appeal ordered a stay of execution of the Lecce District Court’s order. 17.  On 27 August 1997 the applicants filed a motion seeking the enforcement of the order. 18.  On 30 July 1997 the Lecce Court of Appeal confirmed the stay of execution of the Lecce District Court’s order. 19.  On 13 July 1999 the Court of Appeal ordered an expert assessment in order to verify the size of the land in question and calculate the amount of compensation under Law no. 662 of 1996. The report was filed with the court’s registry on 2 February 2000. 20.  According to the expert, the land that had been actually occupied, coupled with the portion that had become unusable due to the building works, was less extensive than the size established in the Lecce District Court’s judgment and amounted to 2,132 square metres. He further concluded that the lawful occupation had ended, for a first portion of the land, on 2 August 1994, and, for a second portion, on 6 September 1994. The expert concluded that the market value of the land in 1994 corresponded to ITL 67,000 per square metre and assessed the compensation due to the applicants under Law no. 662 of 1996 at ITL 83 308 412 (EUR 43,025). 21.  By a judgment of 4 April 2001, filed with the court registry on 4 June 2001, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of ITL 83 308 412 (equivalent to EUR 43,025) to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest. The court dismissed the remaining claims. 22.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicants received the payment of EUR 56 130,81. 23.  On 12 November 2001 the applicants appealed on points of law. 24.  By a judgment of 13 February 2004, filed with the court registry on 15 July 2004, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.