4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1936 and 1939 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa. 5.  The applicants were co-owners of a plot of land located in Karaköprü, Şanlıurfa, registered under parcel no. 740 in the land registry. 6.  On 13 April 1989, the Governorship of Şanlıurfa decided to expropriate the applicants' land, together with other plots. The expropriation aimed at allocating the plots to the Ministry of Defence for military needs. 7.  In 1991 the Ministry of Defence seized the land without compensating the applicants. 8.  On 24 September 1996 Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu, with co‑claimants, filed a compensation claim against the Ministry for the de facto expropriation (case no. 1996/857). They submitted that the Ministry had been occupying their land since 1991 without a formal expropriation. 9.  On the same day and complaining about the same situation, Mrs Agbayır also filed a claim together with other co-claimants (case no. 1996/855). 10.  The applicants initiated both cases with partial claims, reserving their right to request additional compensation should the expert valuations exceed their partial claims. 11.  In both cases the Ministry argued that it had been occupying the land since the mid-1970s and that the claims were time-barred. The Ministry relied on Article 38 of the Expropriation Act, Law no. 2942, pursuant to which all claims for de facto expropriations were subject to a 20-year prescription period running from the seizure of the land. 12.  On 4 December 1996 the court conducted on-site examinations. The experts appointed by the court valued the land in which both Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu each held a 1/13 (one thirteenth) share at 52,517,752,560 Turkish liras (TRL), and that in which Mrs Agbayır held a 1/3 (one third) share at TRL 162,555,120,000. 13.  Accordingly, on 27 December 1996, the Şanlıurfa Civil Court handed down two judgments awarding the applicants their respective partial claims in full, i.e., TRL 80,000,000,000 to Mrs Agbayır (case no. 1998/21) and TRL 26,000,000,000 to Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu (case no. 1998/23). 14.  On appeal, the Court of Cassation quashed both judgments, directing the civil court to broaden the scope of its examination regarding the value of the land. 15.  Complying with this ruling, the Şanlıurfa Civil Court restarted the proceedings. As its further examinations resulted in the same valuations, it gave two judgments on 27 October 1998, awarding the applicants the same amounts as before. 16.  The court also ordered the plot in dispute to be registered in the name of the Treasury. In addition, it made a factual finding with respect to the year in which the seizure had taken place. Reasoning that the witness statements brought by the applicants prevailed over the documents submitted by the Ministry, the court was convinced that the seizure had happened in 1991. 17.  On 3 December 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld both judgments. 18.  On 17 May 1999 the relevant amounts, together with their statutory interest, i.e. TRL 165,577,780 (case no. 1998/21) and TRL 53,812,780 (case no. 1998/23), were paid to the applicants. 19.  As the applicants had reserved their right to additional compensation, they initiated subsequent claims to recover the difference between the amounts awarded and the values assessed by the experts and recognised by the court. In this respect, Mrs Agbayır applied, with a co‑claimant, to the Şanlıurfa Civil Court on 20 July 1999, requesting the balance of TRL 27,518,373,000 (case no. 1999/568). A day later, Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu applied to the same court requesting TRL 4,252,180,480 for each of them (case no. 1999/576). 20.  In case no. 1999/568, the court ruled on 5 October 1999 in favour of Mrs Agbayır and granted her claim in full. On 9 December 1999, however, the Court of Cassation favoured, for the first time in the relevant proceedings, the Ministry's thesis that the seizure had taken place in the mid-1970s, and most probably in 1977. Accordingly, it ruled that the additional claims had been filed outside of the 20-year prescription period of Article 38 of the Expropriation Act. 21.  On 4 May 2000 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court complied with that ruling and dismissed case no. 1999/568. On 29 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld this ruling. This judgment became final on 10 July 2000. 22.  The proceedings in case no. 1999/576 produced a similar outcome. The Şanlıurfa Civil Court dismissed the additional claims of Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu on 6 July 2000 for being out of time. The Court of Cassation upheld that ruling on 19 April 2001 and refused a rectification review. The judgment became final on 4 June 2001. 23.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of the Expropriation Act.