5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of a company Ytong, a.s. adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder. The applicants received cash settlement for their shares based on an expert opinion. 6.  The contract between Ytong, a.s. and the main shareholder for the transfer of all assets to the main shareholder included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement of the minority shareholders with the settlement amounts was to be decided in arbitration before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (“the Arbitration Court”). The asset transfer contract was approved at the general meeting by votes of the majority shareholder. 7.  On 8 October 2003 the applicants lodged with a court an action whereby they asserted that the settlement for the transfer was not adequate and claimed the remainder thereof. 8.  On 14 July 2005 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because of the arbitration clause in the asset transfer contract. 9.  On 28 November 2005 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision not finding a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court. It held that the arbitration clause was binding even for the applicants by virtue of Article 220k § 1 of the Commercial Code. It further held that the issue of the settlement amount was first of all a technical issue. 10.  On 24 June 2008 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law agreeing with the lower courts. 11.  On 17 March 2009 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal alleging violations of their right to a fair trial and prohibition of discrimination as manifestly ill-founded stating only that the opinions of the ordinary courts had not diverted from the generally accepted views on the matter. 12.  After the High Court’s decision became final on 13 January 2006 the applicants, with the exception of Mr Minarik, instituted proceedings before the Arbitration Court as envisaged in the arbitration clause. They nevertheless submitted that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the arbitration clause was not applicable to them. 13.  On 11 October 2006 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings regarding Mr Navrátil and Mr Rybáček for lack of jurisdiction holding that they had not consented to the arbitration. 14.  On 26 May 2007 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings regarding Ms Minarik holding that it had no jurisdiction because Ms Minarik was a German resident and a Czech-German Bilateral Investment Treaty, which was applicable, envisaged right of access to court. On the other hand the motion for lack of jurisdiction concerning Day s.r.o. and Mr Suda was dismissed and the proceedings are pending.