5.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1937 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 6.  The applicants are sisters. Their ancestor and another person, P.D., had owned 14,688 square metres of agricultural land which they had divided in 1957 in equal parts of 7,344 square metres each. Following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act in 1991, the applicants and the heirs of P.D., separately, requested the restitution of their respective parts. The applicants’ request was submitted on 13 March 1991. In a decision of 5 July 1994 the Plovdiv Agricultural Land Commission (“the land commission”) restored 7,015 square metres to the applicants and dismissed their request for the remaining 329 square metres. The heirs of P.D. obtained a decision restoring to them their 7,344 square metres of land. 7.  On 8 September 1994 the applicants appealed to the Plovdiv District Court, asking the court to declare that they were entitled to restitution of the entire plot. 8.  On 24 October 1995 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Relying on an expert’s report it held that the land had been restored to the heirs of P.D. The court thus concluded that the applicants should have brought an action against the latter. The applicants did not submit a petition for review (cassation) against the judgment of 24 October 1995. 9.  On 18 August 1997 the applicants brought an action for rei vindicatio against the heirs of P.D. They sought to be recognised as the owners of 391.5 square metres of land and to obtain possession thereof. 10.  Of the seventeen hearings held between 12 November 1997 and 16 March 2000 four were adjourned at the applicants’ request. Six of the remaining hearings were adjourned for reasons related to the preparation of expert reports commissioned by the court. At least four other hearings were adjourned so that new evidence could be collected or to allow the parties to get acquainted with such evidence. 11.  On 5 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court found against the applicants. It noted that the applicants had stated that their action had been based on section 14 § 4 of the Agricultural Land Act and had not been a rei vindicatio one. However, it was clear from the facts on which it was grounded and the formulation of the applicants’ claims that the action was for rei vindicatio. The District Court noted that the land commission had restored 7,015 square metres to the applicants and 7,344 square metres to the defendants. The missing land had not been restored to the defendants, although it was not clear to whom it had been given. Accordingly, the action was dismissed. 12.  On 13 April 2000 the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment of 5 April 2000. 13.  The first hearing was held on 12 December 2000 and the second one on 26 February 2001. 14.  On 29 June 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. It noted that the applicants did not claim that the heirs of P.D. had obtained land in excess and on that ground found that there was no legal dispute, within the meaning of section 14 § 4 of the Agricultural Land Act. It further found that it could not assess the lawfulness of the land commission’s decision of 1991 which had become final in 1995. 15.  Following an appeal filed by the applicants on 2 August 2001 and a hearing held on 10 October 2002, on 4 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 29 June 2001 and remitted the case to the Regional Court for fresh examination holding that the latter had failed to examine all the relevant issues and instructing it to examine the whole restitution file. 16.  On 12 September 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of the District Court of 5 April 2000. It subscribed to the lower court’s findings and noted that the land commission’s decision had become final in 1995. 17.  Following an appeal filed by the applicants on 15 October 2003 and a hearing held on 26 January 2005, on 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment. The court endorsed the lower courts’ finding that the decision of the land commission had become final and therefore must be respected. It also held that the applicants had neither proved that the defendants were in possession of the claimed piece of land nor its precise location.