5.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia. 6.  In 1959 Mr M., the husband of the first applicant and father of the second applicant, purchased from the Sofia municipality a four-room flat which had been nationalised in 1948. 7.  On 22 February 1993 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought proceedings under section 7 of the 1992 Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property (the Restitution Law) seeking the annulment of the applicants’ title. Initially, however, their action was directed against the first applicant and Mr M. Finding that this did not represent a valid claim against the second applicant, and in view of the fact that no such claim had been brought within the time-limit indicated in the Restitution Law, in a final decision of 22 September 1997 the courts terminated the proceedings against the second applicant. 8.  The Sofia District Court held its first hearing on 23 February 1994. The first applicant had been duly summoned on 29 November 1993 but did not attend. 9.  The Sofia District Court held seventeen more hearings, eight of which, held between 15 February 1995 and 7 October 1996, were adjourned because the first applicant had not been found at her address to be summoned. For the first time a representative of the first applicant attended a hearing on 12 March 1997. 10.  In a judgment of 11 November 1997 the Sofia District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action. On 19 January 1999 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. 11.  The plaintiffs appealed. In a judgment of 19 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation reversed that decision and referred the case back to the Sofia City Court, holding that the latter had applied the law wrongly. 12.  On 30 June 2000 the Sofia City Court gave a judgment finding against the first applicant and ordering her to surrender possession of the flat to the plaintiffs. 13.  The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. In a final judgment of 27 November 2001 the latter court upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment.