4.  The applicants were born in 1939, 1937, 1940 and 1949, respectively. The first applicant lives in the village of Konstantynopil, the second and the third applicants in Melitopol and the fourth applicant in Ivano-Frankivsk 5.  On 14 February 2000 the first applicant initiated a land-related dispute with an agricultural enterprise. 6.  Following two remittals of the case by the appellate court to the first‑instance court for fresh examination, on 15 April 2004 the Velyka Novosilka Town Court found against the first applicant. 7.  On 1 July 2004 and 5 September 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (sitting as a court of cassation), respectively, upheld the aforementioned judgment. 8.  There were eight adjournments in the proceedings due to the defendant company’s failure to appear for hearings. The first applicant’s absence caused one such adjournment.
II.  proceedings instituted by the SECOND AND THE THIRD applicantS 9.  On 1 December 1995 the second and the third applicants initiated a land dispute against their neighbour. 10.  On 20 November 2007 the proceedings, which had taken place before the courts of three levels of jurisdiction, were completed by a final ruling of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (sitting as a cassation court) finding against the applicants. 11.  In the course of the proceedings, there was one remittal of the case from the appellate court to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. The courts also ordered five forensic technical expert examinations. Furthermore, there were nine adjournments in the proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear for hearings.
III.  proceedings instituted by the FOURTH applicant 12.  On 13 November 2000 the fourth applicant instituted a civil dispute against his neighbour seeking acknowledgement of his entitlement to a land plot and a permit to pursue certain construction works. Subsequently, the local authorities were involved in the proceedings as defendants. The fourth applicant’s neighbour, in turn, brought a counterclaim. 13.  Following the examination of the case by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction which had allowed the fourth applicant’s claim in part, on 21 January 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions for the most part and remitted the case back to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 14.  According to the parties, the proceedings remain pending before the first-instance court. 15.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant amended his claims several times. The courts also ordered four forensic technical expert examinations at the defendants’ requests.