4.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1948, 1954 and 1944 respectively and live in Tirana (Albania) and Varese (Italy). 5.  The applicants’ father owned a villa with a surface area of 42.70 sq. m and two adjacent plots of land measuring approximately 46.70 sq. m and 48.55 sq. m respectively. From 1946 to 1978 the applicants’ father rented the villa to B.N.’s father. 6.  On an unspecified date, as the villa was uninhabitable, the State granted the applicants’ father a compulsory loan of 16,204 leks (ALL) for renovation of the villa. 7.  In 1976 B.N. constructed two additional buildings on the plot of land measuring 48.55 sq. m. By a decision of 23 February 1976 the Tirana District Court allocated the additional buildings to B. N. 8.  As a result of the applicants’ father’s failure to repay the debt, the villa was nationalised by virtue of decision no. 133 of 14 July 1978. From 1978 onwards B.N.’s family continued to live in the villa as tenants of a State-owned property. 9.  In 1996, pursuant to the Property Restitution and Compensation Act (“the Property Act”), the applicants lodged a claim with the Tirana Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (Komisioni I Kthimit dhe Kompensimit te Pronave). 10.  On 22 May 1996 the Tirana Commission, holding that the nationalisation of the applicants’ father’s villa had been illegal, awarded the applicants the villa (with a surface area of 42.70 sq. m) and the plot of land measuring 46.70 sq. m, subject to the repayment of ALL 1,204 (representing the outstanding amount of their father’s unpaid debt to the State which had led to the nationalisation of the properties). With regard to the plot of land measuring 48.55 sq. m, in view of B.N.’s investment in the additional building, the Commission upheld his right of first refusal on the purchase of the land. 11.  On an unspecified date in 1997, B.N., the tenant of the villa which had been allotted to the applicants, brought a civil action before the Tirana District Court, claiming property rights over the villa and the adjacent plot of land. Moreover, he alleged that the Commission’s decision of 22 May 1996 should be declared null and void, in so far as it was in breach of section 13 of the Property Act. 12.  On 15 July 1997 the Tirana District Court declared the Commission’s decision of 22 May 1996 null and void. It found that according to an expert report, the outlays by the State and B.N.’s father on structural changes and annexes to the original building amounted to more than 85% of the property’s original value. The Commission’s decision was therefore held to have been in breach of section 13 of the Property Act. 13.  On 7 November 1997 the Tirana Court of Appeal, having examined an appeal by the applicants alleging a violation of their property rights, upheld the District Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. 14.  The applicants appealed to the Civil Division of the Supreme Court, which on 6 May 1998 quashed the decisions of the above courts. It held that the decisions had been based on an expert report which was illogical and contained incorrect calculations and accordingly sent the case back for rehearing. 15.  On 11 April 2001 the Tirana Court of Appeal, rehearing the case, declared the Commission’s decision null and void. Relying on a new expert report, it held that the nationalisation of the applicants’ father’s villa had been in accordance with substantive law requirements at the material time and that, consequently, the applicants could not benefit from the process of restitution of property. Moreover, the court upheld the applicants’ property rights over the two adjacent plots of land and, pursuant to section 16 of the Property Act, decided on their right to receive compensation in one of the forms provided for by law. 16.  On 15 February 2002 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants as being ill-founded. 17.  The applicants lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court on the basis of Article 131 (f) of the Constitution. They alleged that the Supreme Court’s decision and the Court of Appeal’s judgment had been unconstitutional. 18.  On 24 September 2002 the Constitutional Court, in accordance with section 31 of the Constitutional Court Organisation and Operation Act (Law no. 8577 of 10 February 2000), decided de plano to declare the applicants’ complaint inadmissible as being “outside its jurisdiction”. 19.  In a letter of 22 March 2004 the applicants informed the Registry that the authorities had failed to comply with the final decision of 11 April 2001 relating to the compensation issue.