8.  On 10 February 1992 the Topoľčany Land Office (Pozemkový úrad) delivered two decisions granting the applicants’ claims for restitution of real property under the Land Ownership Act. The defendants appealed. 9.  On 16 December 1993 the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd Bratislava, pobočka v Nitre) quashed these decisions on the ground that at the moment of the expropriation the land in question had been formally owned by a private company established by the members of the applicants’ family. However, the Land Ownership Act provided exclusively for restitution of property taken away from individuals. The Regional Court therefore sent the case back to the administrative authority. Prior to deciding on the case the Regional Court held a hearing with reference to Section 250q of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10.  In the meantime, on 13 November 1992, the applicants and another member of their family concluded an agreement with the Western Slovakia Forest Administration. Under the agreement the Western Slovakia Forest Administration undertook to restore, in accordance with the Land Ownership Act, different real property expropriated from the applicants’ family. On 26 November 1992 the Topoľčany Land Office approved the agreement pursuant to Section 9 of the Land Ownership Act. Its decision became final on 18 December 1992. 11.  On 17 June 1994 the Topoľčany Land Office decided to reopen the proceedings leading to its decision of 26 November 1992 pursuant to Section 62 (1) (a) and (b) of the Administrative Proceedings Act of 1967. The decision referred to the above finding of the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court of 16 December 1993 according to which the land taken away from the applicants’ relatives could not be restored under the Land Ownership Act as it had been formally owned by a legal person. 12.  On 4 July 1997 the applicants appealed through the intermediary of their lawyer. They argued that no relevant new facts had been established and that the decision to reopen the proceedings was not justified by the public interest. The applicants concluded that there existed no legal entitlement for having the proceedings reopened. 13.  On 22 May 1995 the Ministry of Agriculture upheld the Land Office’s decision of 17 June 1994. The decision stated that no reasons for quashing or modifying the Land Office’s decision had been found. 14.  The applicants sought a judicial review of the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture. On 29 September 1995 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of a procedural nature. Reference was made to Article 248 (2) (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15.  By a decision of 8 June 1995 the Topoľčany Land Office disapproved the agreement concluded on 13 November 1992 on the ground that the property in question had been taken away from a legal person and that under the Land Ownership Act only property originally owned by individuals could be restored. 16.  The applicants appealed and argued that there existed no reason for reopening the proceedings and that the land had been taken away from the members of their family. 17.  On 30 January 1998 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the Land Office’s decision of 8 June 1995. The judgment stated that the only point to be determined was a question of law, namely whether the plaintiffs were entitled, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Land Ownership Act, to acquire the property. The court noted that in the judgment of 16 December 1993 it had found that the property had been taken away from a private company of which the applicants’ predecessors had been members and which had been a legal person. The Regional Court concluded that the applicants lacked standing to claim restitution under the Land Ownership Act. 18.  The Regional Court further noted that a decision on reopening of proceedings before an administrative authority could not be reviewed by a court. It decided on the case without a hearing with reference to Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure.