4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1946, respectively, and currently live in Rijeka. 5.  They are the owners of a three-storey family house in Knin, with a surface area of 350 square metres. They lived there until 5 August 1995, when they left Croatia. It appears that the second applicant returned to Croatia in November or December 1995 and went to live with her son in Rijeka. The first applicant joined them in July 2000. 6.  On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Administration of Certain Property Act (“the Takeover Act”) entered into force. It provided that property belonging to persons who had left Croatia after 17 October 1990 was to be sequestered, that is, taken into the care of and controlled by the State. It also authorised local authorities (takeover commissions) to temporarily accommodate other persons in such property. 7.  On 4 October 1996 the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Certain Property of the Town of Knin (Komisija za privremeno preuzimanje i korištenje određene imovine Grada Knina – “the Takeover Commission”) issued a decision authorising a certain A.M. and M.M. to use the applicants’ house temporarily. 8.  In June 1998 Parliament adopted the Programme for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons (“the Programme for Return”), regulating the principles for their return and repossession of their property. 9.  In August 1998 the Act on Termination of the Takeover Act (“the Termination Act”) entered into force. It incorporated and gave legal force to the provisions of the Programme for Return, providing that those persons whose property had, during their absence from Croatia, been used to accommodate others, should apply to the competent local authorities – the housing commissions – to recover their property. 10.   Meanwhile, on 13 December 1995 the second applicant made a request to the Takeover Commission seeking that the house be returned to her. She received no reply. 11.  On 17 March 1999 both applicants applied for repossession of their house to the Housing Commission of the Town of Knin (Stambena Komisija Knin – “the Housing Commission”), as provided by the Programme for Return. 12.  On 30 November 2001 the Housing Commission set aside the Takeover Commission’s decision of 4 October 1996 and ordered that the property be returned to the applicants once alternative accommodation had been secured for the temporary occupants. However, no such accommodation was secured and the temporary occupants continued to live in the applicants’ house. 13.  On 9 April 2003 the applicants brought a civil action in the Knin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kninu) against A.M. and M.M., seeking their eviction. On 7 October 2003 the court delivered a judgment ordering the respondents to vacate the house within 15 days after being provided with a place to stay. It held that until then they were entitled to remain in the applicants’ property. 14.  Even though the court formally ruled in favour of the applicants, they appealed, arguing that by making their right to repossess their own house dependent on a future and uncertain event, the first-instance court actually exceeded its authority by granting a relief different from the one they sought (that is, ruled extra petitum). 15.  On 22 December 2003 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging violations of their constitutional rights to respect for their home and their property and to equality before the law. 16.  On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed their complaint. 17.  The applicants submit that they have never regained possession of their house, which was instead sold without their authorisation (see paragraph 18 below). 18.  Meanwhile, on 16 September 2004 the State Real Estate Agency (Agencija za pravni promet i posjedovanje nekretninama) and a certain K.V. – who submitted a power-of-attorney allegedly signed by the applicants authorising her to act on their behalf – concluded a sale contract whereby the applicants sold their house to the State for 335,700 Croatian kunas (HRK). 19.  On 27 October 2004 the State leased the house to the above-mentioned temporary occupants. 20.  The applicants claimed that they had never heard of K.V., let alone authorised her to sell their house, and that only on 29 November 2004 had they found out that the house had been sold. On 1 December 2004 they filed a criminal complaint against K.V. with the competent State Attorney’s Office. 21.  On 11 October 2004 the State Real Estate Agency applied to the Land Registry Division of the Knin Municipal Court with a view to registering the State as the owner of the applicants’ house on the basis of the above sale contract. On 10 November 2004, after finding that the sale contract and the power-of-attorney were not in conformity with certain formal requirements, the court allowed only preliminary registration, which the State had to validate by bringing a civil action against the applicants within 15 days. After finding out about the sale (see paragraph 20 above), on 15 December 2004 the applicants appealed against the preliminary registration decision, arguing they did not know who K.V. was and thus could not have authorised her to sell their house. 22.  On 19 January 2005 the Šibenik County Court accepted the appeal and reversed the first-instance decision by dismissing the Agency’s request in its entirety. It found that the request did not even meet the requirements for preliminary registration. 23.  On 14 June 2005 the State Real Estate Agency re-submitted their request. On 28 June 2005 the Knin Municipal Court dismissed it. 24.  On 27 June 2005 the State brought a regular civil action against the applicants in the Knin Municipal Court seeking to be declared the owner of their house and recorded as such in the land register. 25.  The plaintiff argued that the applicants had sold their house to the State and received the money for it. The applicants replied that they had never heard of K.V., who had purportedly signed the sale contract on their behalf, nor authorised her to do so. They added that they had never received any money for the sale of their house. 26.  After obtaining an opinion from an expert in graphology, on 5 March 2007 the Municipal Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action, finding that the applicants’ signatures on the power-of-attorney allegedly given to K.V. had been forged and that the sale contract was therefore null and void. 27.  On 18 June 2008 the Šibenik County Court dismissed the appeal of the State and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.