4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Nicolae Bălcescu. 5.  On 9 December 1992 the second applicant bought from M.I. a property consisting of 3,000 sq. m of land and the buildings on it. 6.  On 20 April 1993 the second applicant brought an action against C.M. and R.S. seeking recovery of possession of the property. She also requested that R.S. be ordered to demolish what he had built on 1,000 sq. m of land.
The defendants lodged a counterclaim against the local administrative authorities, seeking to be certified as the owners of the property. 7.  On 4 March 1994 the Constanţa Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) allowed the second applicant’s action and ordered C.M. to leave 2,000 sq. m of land and the buildings on it in her possession, considering R.S. to be the owner of 1,000 sq. m of land. 8.  On 12 January 1995 the Constanţa Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld an appeal by C.M., quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for a fresh examination, as the first-instance court had not considered the case on the merits as regards the 2,000 sq. m of land after an adversarial argument by the local administrative authorities. 9.  On 3 May 1995 the Constanţa Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) rejected as inadmissible an appeal on points of law by the second applicant against the judgment of the Regional Court. 10.  After the retrial, on 29 April 1996 the Court of First Instance allowed the second applicant’s action and ordered C.M. to leave the house and the 2,000 sq. m of land in her possession, considering R.S. to be the owner of 1,000 sq. m of land. 11.  On 26 March 1997 the Regional Court upheld an appeal by C.M., quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for fresh consideration. It found that the original judgment had not been signed by the registrar. 12.  After the fresh examination, on 10 September 1997 the Court of First Instance, after comparing the land titles, dismissed the second applicant’s action. It found that M.I. had not been the owner of the property when he had sold it to the second applicant. 13.  On 1 July 1998 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged on 8 January 1998 by the first applicant as being brought by a person with no capacity to take part in court proceedings, due to the fact that he had not participated in the trial before the first instance. 14.  On 20 April 1999 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law by the second applicant, quashed the judgment of the Regional Court, changed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for a fresh examination. Taking into account the community of property between spouses, the court considered that the property under discussion belonged to both applicants and noted that the first instance had not also summoned the first applicant. It ordered both of them to be summoned during the trial on the merits. 15.  After the retrial, on 1 March 2000 the Court of First Instance, after comparing the land titles, rejected the applicants’ action, considering that their title had not come from an owner. 16.  On 14 February 2001 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants. That decision was upheld on 4 July 2001 by a final decision of the Court of Appeal.