6.  The following is a brief summary of the relevant facts of the case[1]. 7.  The applicants’ family owned real estate of approximately 1,500 hectares. It was confiscated by the State after the Second World War.
 8.  In 1991, the Land Ownership Act (Law no. 229/1991 Coll. ‑ “the Act”) was enacted, which provided for certain real property to be restored to its original owners or their legal successors. In situations similar to that of the applicants, the total acreage which could be returned was limited, under section 6 (3) of the Act, to 150 hectares for agricultural land and 250 hectares for other land. 9.  On 28 February 1992 an amendment to the Act (Law no. 93/1992 Coll.) repealed section 6 (3) of the Act as, according to its explanatory memorandum, “the acreage limit restricted human rights”. 10.  On 8 December 1992 Mrs M.R., the applicants’ relative, requested under the Act restitution of all her family’s real property to her. 11.  On 26 August 1993 a new amendment to the Act (Law no. 186/1993 Coll.) reintroduced section 6 (3) of the Act, setting a general limit of 250 hectares on the amount of land to be restored to one person. Pursuant to a new section 33 (2), pending claims for restitution of land over the said limit could be satisfied only up to that limit. 12.  On 15 February 1995 Mrs M.R. died. The applicants inherited her rights and continued her restitution claim as her heirs. 13.  On 22 February 1999 the Land Office found that the applicants met all the requirements for restitution of property under the Act and ordered the forestry enterprise which occupied it to restore the land to them up to the 250-hectare limit. The Regional Court in Žilina upheld this decision on 7 July 1999. 14.  On 20 September 1999 the Land Office formally ruled, at the applicants’ request, that they qualified for restitution of their property under the Act. However, in view of the decision of 22 February 1999 and the limit set by section 6 (3) of the Act, no further land could be restored to them. 15.  On 25 January 2000 the Prosecutor General challenged sections 6 (3) and 33 (2) of the Act, as amended in 1993, before the Constitutional Court. On 24 April 2001 the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary, dismissed the Prosecutor General’s challenge. 16.  On 14 December 2001 the Regional Court upheld the Land Office’s decision of 20 September 1999 as lawful. It became final and binding on 25 March 2002. 17.  Subsequently the applicants unsuccessfully challenged the decision of 14 December 2001 and the proceedings leading up to it before the Constitutional Court by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.