9.  On 23 September 1992 the applicants lodged an action with the Michalovce District Court. They claimed compensation, under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, for both real and movable property which had been taken away from their late father. 10.  On 20 January 1993 the District Court submitted the action to the defendant authority for comments. On 6 April 1993 the defendant authority submitted its observations in reply. 11.  On 28 April 1993 the District Court adjourned the case and requested the applicants to specify the legal provisions on which their claim was based and to submit further documentary evidence. On 24 May 1993 the applicants submitted further documents. They specified the provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act on which their action was based on 3 September 1993. 12.  On 16 September 1993 the District Court heard the applicants. 13.  On 5 October 1993 the judge inspected the real property in question in the presence of the parties. The judge also heard a witness. 14.  On 8 November 1993 the applicants withdrew their claim concerning compensation for movable property. On 15 December 1993 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of that claim. This decision became final on 11 February 1994. 15.  On 14 April 1994 the court heard two witnesses. 16.  On 27 April 1994 the judge visited the real property in question and heard two witnesses and an expert. 17.  On 11 May 1994 the applicants proposed that the court hear three witnesses. In September 1994 they requested the court not to proceed with the case between 20 October and 1 November 1994 due to the absence of their lawyer. 18.  On 7 March 1995 the District Court heard three witnesses and invited the parties to explore the possibility of settling the case. On 18 May 1995 the applicants informed the judge that they were not opposed to her intention to order an expert opinion with a view to evaluating the property should the attempt to settle the case fail. On 29 June 1995 the defendant ministry refused to accept the applicants’ claims. 19.  On 11 October 1995 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on the parties on 1 and 4 December 1995 respectively. 20.  On 15 December 1995 the applicants appealed. The defendant authority submitted its observations in reply on 29 January 1996, and on 20 February 1996 the case file was submitted to the appellate court. 21.  On 6 March 1996 the applicants submitted further arguments to the appellate court. 22.  On 7 October 1997 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. 23.  On 7 January 1998 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They challenged the lower courts’ conclusions and complained that the Regional Court had not appointed an expert with a view to establishing the value of the property. 24.  On 21 April 1998 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. It found that the refusal to order an expert opinion was not a relevant reason for quashing the second instance judgment and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the appellate court’s finding on the merits.