5.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1960 and 1959 respectively and live in Kyiv. 6.  The applicants are owners and residents of apartments in a multi-apartment building. By 1998 all but three of some fifty apartments located in this building had been privatised by their residents pursuant to the Law of Ukraine “On Privatisation of the State Housing Stock”. The three non-privatised apartments remained in municipal ownership. 7.  On 29 April 1998 the Kyiv City State Administration authorised Mrs N.N. to renovate the attic of the building and construct a mansard floor with a view to obtaining title to the renovated and newly constructed premises on condition that the residents' consent was sought for the project. 8.  On 29 May 1998 Mrs N.N. signed an investment contract for renovation and construction works with the Radyansky District Housing Maintenance Company (Державне підприємство по утриманню житлового фонду Радянського району м. Києва) acting for the building's owner. According to the contract, the building was municipally owned, and the municipality was to grant Mrs N.N. title to the construction on completion of the works. Subsequently Mrs V.G. became party to this contract as the second investor. Neither the applicants nor the other apartment owners were asked for their consent to the project. On a number of occasions the apartment owners unsuccessfully contacted various authorities to object to the construction works. 9.  In July 2001 the apartment owners formed the Apartment Owners Association (“the Association”), which was joined by the applicants. 10.  In April 2002 the investors started the works on the building. 11.  According to the applicants, their apartments suffered damage on account of the construction works (such as cracks in the ceiling and the walls, flooding and pieces of plaster falling off). 12.  In October 2002 the Association instituted civil proceedings in Svyatoshynsky District Court, Kyiv, seeking to annul the investment contract and to restore the attic to its previous state, alleging, in particular, that the municipality owned only three apartments in the building and should have sought the consent of the other apartment owners in order to conclude the contract. The applicants, who were represented by the Association, subsequently also joined the proceedings on their own behalf, along with two other apartment owners. 13.  The Shevchenkivsky District State Administration (the successor of the Radyansky District State Administration; “the Administration”) lodged a counterclaim, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from interfering with the works and to have their refusal to consent to them declared illegitimate. By way of reasoning, the Administration submitted that the building, and particularly its attic and roof, were old and in very poor condition. They urgently needed investment for renovations. The construction works were therefore beneficial for all the apartment owners and residents of the building. 14.  On an unspecified date Svyatoshynsky Court ordered the suspension of the construction works in connection with the dispute. Nevertheless the works continued and were completed by 6 December 2002. 15.  On 26 December 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Council granted the title to the renovated and newly constructed premises to the investors. On an unspecified date the applicants and the Association amended their claims, seeking to have this decision quashed. 16.  On 29 January 2003 Svyatoshynsky Court dismissed the applicants' and the Association's claims and allowed the counterclaim by the Administration. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
“From the moment of privatisation of the apartments, the plaintiffs and, at the material time, the Radyansky District Administration, which had remained the owner of three apartments, obtained joint divided ownership to the building, including auxiliary premises ...
According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, possession, use and disposal of joint divided property shall be carried out with the consent of all the owners, while in the absence of consent the dispute is to be decided by a court.
Consequently, the question of reconstruction of the attic and renovation of the building had to be decided with the consent of all the co-owners of the house. However, as established by court, the investment agreement was concluded by one of the co-owners of the building without the consent of other co-owners, in connection with which the present proceedings arose.
...
Regard being had to the fact that the investment agreement has been practically completed by the material time, that this has facilitated improvement of the technical state of the entire building and that, in addition to the plaintiffs, the Shevchenkivsky District Administration also owns some apartments in it, the plaintiffs' refusal to consent to the construction works under the investment agreement is unlawful and encroaches on the rights of other co-owners; therefore the initial claim should be dismissed and the counterclaim allowed.
...
Demands to quash the decision no. 114 of the Shevchenkivsky District Council of 26 December 2002 consenting to alienation ... of the premises constructed on the attic ... from municipal property ... shall not be allowed on the following grounds. ... The building was owned at all times by the municipal community represented by the Council, which, according to Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine “On Local Self-Governance”, unilaterally ... executes rights of possession, use and disposal of the objects of municipal property, including housing stock. Therefore, regard being had to the above and that the reconstruction of the attic... was carried out at N. N.'s and V. G.'s expense, the Shevchenkivsky District Council was empowered to take such a decision”. 17.  In February 2003 the plaintiffs appealed, alleging various violations of substantive and procedural law by the trial court. In particular, they maintained that the Svyatoshynsky Court's reasoning concerning the District Council's right to transfer the title to the attic had been in manifest disregard of applicable law and in contradiction of the court's own findings that according to Article 113 of the Civil Code the attic was co-owned by the municipality and the plaintiffs. 18.  On 14 April 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal. The judgment, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“... in rejecting the claim... the [district] court reasonably considered that before the creation of the Association (on 26 July 2001) and from the moment of privatisation by the plaintiffs of particular apartments... the building... was in the joint divided ownership of the individual apartment owners and the District Council; the legal status of which parties concerning possession, use and disposal of the building being governed by Article 113 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Deciding the present dispute and finding ... the refusal of the plaintiffs – co-owners of the building - to consent to the reconstruction of the attic premises and construction of the mansard floor unreasonable, the court had properly considered ... necessity to carry out such works ... regard being had to the technical state of the roof and the attic premises ..., [and] that ... [in the course of the reconstruction] some other works [were carried out] for the improvement of the living conditions of all the owners and tenants of the residential premises [as well as] the value of the building as a property.
Regard being had to the fact that a mansard floor was constructed at the investors' expense and without the participation of the plaintiffs ... the Shevchenkivsky District Council had lawfully decided the issue of disposal of the above premises, in compliance with Article 119 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.” 19.  The plaintiffs appealed in cassation, maintaining in particular that it was unlawful to deprive them, as they represented over 70% of the apartment owners, of their property on the basis of a reference to its alleged improvement by a third party, to which they had never consented. They also submitted that the condition of the house in general had been made worse as a result of the works. 20.  On 13 August 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal in cassation. 21.  Subsequently the plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an extraordinary review of their claims with reference to inconsistent jurisprudence of domestic courts in application of the law in similar cases.