10.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1937, respectively, and live in Tata, Hungary. 11.  In May 1987 the Tatabánya District Court granted a request by Mrs. O., the applicants' neighbour, that they be ordered to tolerate a sewer, which emanated from her property, crossing part of their garden. 12.  In 1988 the applicants brought an action in trespass against Mrs. O., claiming that, when installing the sewer, she exceeded the scope of the rights granted to her in 1987. 13.  In July 1990 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the District Court's dismissal of the action and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings, in February 1991 the District Court again dismissed the applicants' action. In October 1991 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a second time. 14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 2 February 1993 the District Court held a hearing and appointed a technical expert. On 9 May 1995 an inspection of the premises was carried out. On 9 November 1995 a further expert was appointed but replaced, on the applicants' complaint, on 22 January 1996. In April 1996 the expert sent the documentation back to the District Court indicating that the applicants had prevented him from inspecting the premises. On 14 November 1996 the District Court appointed the Forensic Technical Expert Institute to give an opinion in the case, which it did on 26 March 1997. A final report was submitted on 23 September 1997. 15.  On 13 November 1997 the District Court accepted the applicants' claims, finding that the defendant's installation of the sewer had constituted a trespass and ordered her to remove it. It dismissed the defendant's counter-action brought with a view to establishing rights of servitude. 16.  On 15 May 1998 the Regional Court dismissed the defendant's appeal. 17.  On 17 June 1998 the defendant brought a petition for review before the Supreme Court. On 28 September 1998 the applicants submitted their counter-arguments. 18.  On 19 November 1998 the District Court ordered the competent agent to proceed with the enforcement of its decision. This took place on 4 December 1998. 19.  On 10 March 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the defendant's counter-action on the servitude claim, but quashed the remainder of the first and second instance judgments and dismissed the applicants' action. It held that the extent to which the defendant had exceeded the rights granted to her in 1987 did not warrant the removal of the sewer. In so far as the applicants had disputed her right to install the sewer across their land, the Supreme Court qualified their claims as res judicata. The judgment was served on the applicants on 4 June 1999.