4.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1969 respectively and live in Budapest. 5.  The first applicant is an illusionist and the second applicant is his partner. 6.  On 1 March 1994 the applicants entered into a contractual relationship with E. Cruise Lines, a Greek company, with a view to performing the applicants’ show on board the cruiser Pallas Athene for 8 months. On 24 March 1994 the Greek company shipped the applicants’ equipment on board Pallas Athene where, on the same day, it was destroyed by a fire. The applicants had no insurance. 
As the Greek company refused to pay compensation for the damage, on 25 January 1995 the applicants brought an action before the Hungarian Pest Central District Court. 7.  On 2 February 1995 the District Court ordered the applicants to complete their statement of claims. The applicants complied with this order on 22 March 1995. On 7 April 1995 the court exempted the applicants from payment of an advance on court fees. 8.  On 3 July 1995 the court ordered the applicants to submit documents with a view to attaching them to the request for information on Greek law to be sent to the Greek authorities. The applicants complied with the order within ten days. 9.  On 15 December 1995 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice received the reply of the Greek authorities requesting further information on the case. On 22 May 1996 the District Court sent the completed request to the Hungarian Ministry of Justice. 10.  In reply to the applicants’ enquiry with the District Court as to whether the requested information on Greek law had been obtained, the Ministry of Justice informed the District Court that, due to an administrative mistake, the request had had to be re-sent to the Greek authorities on 27 January 1997. 11.  The Greek authorities’ reply was served on the District Court on 12 May 1997. In their observations of 20 June 1997 the applicants found the Greek authorities’ answer incomprehensible and requested the District Court to obtain more information from the Greek authorities. 12.  On 1 September 1997 the applicants submitted evidence. 13.  The District Court having completed the request for information according to the applicants’ observations, on 23 February 1998 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice forwarded the request to the Greek Ministry of Justice. The latter’s reply reached the District Court on 29 May 1998. 14.  On 23 December 1998 the defendant company received the District Court’s summons of 21 October 1998. 15.  At the applicants’ request, on 27 October 1998 the District Court granted priority to the case. 16.  On 20 April 1999 the District Court held a hearing. The representative of the defendant company, Mr K., a lawyer, failed to attend. The District Court was unable to establish whether the applicants’ pleadings and the summons issued by the District Court had been validly served on Mr K. in Greece. Therefore, the District Court ordered an adjournment and, through the Ministry of Justice, requested that:
(i) the public prosecutor attached to the first instance court of Pireus verify whether service of the pleadings and the summons on Mr K. was valid under Greek law and whether Mr. K. was employed by the defendant company or whether he had a valid power of attorney;
(ii) the first instance court of Pireus certify whether E. Cruise Lines was an existing company under the law of the place of registration, or whether it had merged with another company, and if so, whether the latter was the successor of the former.
Assuming that the service was valid under either Hungarian or Greek law, the District Court ordered the defendant company to respond to the applicants’ pleadings within 30 days from the day of service. 17.  On 4 November 1999 the Greek Ministry of Justice replied that they were not in a position to fulfil the request for information about specific matters, on which only a lawyer could give an opinion. In their reply of 29 November 1999 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice reminded the Greek authorities that under the relevant provisions of the Greek-Hungarian bilateral Treaty on Legal Assistance and of the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, they were obliged to provide the information requested. 18.  On 20 January 2000 the District Court informed the applicants that – according to the documents submitted by the Ministry of Justice on 14 January 2000 – the defendant company “had refused to be served with the pleadings and the summons without giving a reason” and that no information had been submitted concerning the state of Greek law. 19.  On 14 July 2000 the District Court again informed the applicants that the information concerning Greek law had not been submitted. 20.  On 1 February 2001 the District Court informed the applicants that – according to the Ministry of Justice – the Greek authorities had refused to provide the information requested. 21.  The continued efforts of the Hungarian Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to urge the Greek authorities by notes verbales and telephone contacts on 7 March, 14 September, 12 November 2001, 16 January, 21 August and 19 September 2002 were unsuccessful. 22.  In the meantime, the Hungarian Ministry of Justice suggested to the District Court to apply Hungarian law instead of Greek law, a possibility provided under section 5 § 3 of Law-Decree no. 13 of 1979 on International Private Law, having regard to the protracted exchange of correspondence. On 3 June 2002 the District Court replied to the Ministry that the information on Greek law was still necessary. It considered that the Greek authorities’ refusal to provide information on a complex legal issue did not render impossible, as such, the establishment of the contents of the foreign law in question. The District Court therefore held that Hungarian law could not be applied. 23.  On a renewed enquiry, the Greek Ministry of Justice informed the Hungarian Ministry of Justice that it had taken all necessary steps in the case but had not yet received any information from the competent authorities. 24.  The proceedings are still pending before the District Court. 25.  Section 5 §§ 1 and 3 of Law-Decree no. 13 of 1979 on International Private Law reads as follows:
“Establishing the content of foreign law
(1) A court/authority shall ex officio request information about any foreign law unknown to it. If necessary, it shall obtain the opinion of experts and may take into account evidence submitted by the parties.
(3) In case the content of the foreign law cannot be established, Hungarian law shall be applied.”