4.  The first, second and third applicants were born in 1971, 1947 and 1954 respectively, and live in Budapest. 5.  The second and third applicants, as well as the legal predecessors of the first and third applicant (Ms Róbertné Hidas and Ms Miklósné Kecskés) and other persons were co-owners of a plot of land of 4,847 sq. m (land registry title no. 223591) in District XXII of Budapest. They also co‑owned a neighbouring plot of land of 423 sq. m (land registry title no. 223592). 6.  On 19 January 1998 the Budapest District XXII Mayor’s Office (hereafter “the local authority”) ordered the partition of plot no. 223591 into two plots measuring 1,519 sq. m and 3,328 sq. m. In the same decision, it requisitioned (lejegyzés) the plot of 1,519 sq. m for the purpose of constructing a local public road and awarded compensation of 5,511,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 25,000 European Currency Units (ECU) (the predecessor to the euro) at the material time), to be distributed among the owners in proportion to their ownership shares. 7.  At the same time, the local authority also partitioned plot no. 223592 and requisitioned a part of that land with an area of 123 sq. m in exchange for compensation of HUF 376,200 (approximately ECU 1,700). 8.  The decisions were served on the first applicant’s legal predecessor, the second applicant, the third applicant and the third applicant’s legal predecessor, among other persons. They appealed against it. 9.  On 6 March 1998 the Budapest Public Administration Office (Budapest Főváros Közigazgatási Hivatala) upheld the first-instance decisions, which thus became final. 10.  On 25 March 1998 the local authority entered into possession of the requisitioned plots of land and paid the compensation to the applicants, who only provisionally accepted the sum, while reserving their right to bring court proceedings against the requisition orders. 11.  On 13 April 1998 some of the above-mentioned owners challenged the administrative decisions in court. The legal predecessor of the first applicant and the second applicant himself were parties to the proceedings, but not the third applicant or his legal predecessor. 12.  On 16 March 2005, following two remittals ordered by the Budapest Court of Appeal, the Budapest High Court delivered a first-instance judgment and dismissed the claim. 13.  On 30 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance judgment and ordered new administrative proceedings. It held that the local authority’s decision had been tainted by a procedural irregularity, in that the local authority’s notary (who had adopted the decision of 19 January 1998) should have abstained from taking a decision in a case in which the local authority employing him had been one of the interested parties. 14.  Accordingly, the Budapest District XI Mayor’s Office was appointed to conduct new first-instance administrative proceedings. On 7 February 2008 it adopted a decision identical to that of 19 January 1998 (see paragraph 7 above). 15.  On 2 July 2008 the decision was upheld on appeal by the Public Administration Office of Budapest, with an amendment that the compensation figures should be increased by accrued interest. 16.  On 27 August 2008 the first applicant challenged the new administrative decision in court. The second and third applicants intervened (beavatkozó) in the proceedings in support of the first applicant. 17.  On 11 March 2010 the Budapest High Court found for the applicants, quashed the administrative decision because it had been adopted on the basis of a legal provision previously annulled by the Constitutional Court, and ordered new proceedings. 18.  On 10 January 2015 the Budapest Government Office (Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala) adopted a new administrative decision, with the same content as before, but on different legal grounds. 19.  On 9 February 2015 the applicants brought court proceedings against that decision. 20.  On 19 April 2016 the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court delivered its judgment. It dismissed the applicants’ action as far as the requisition’s lawfulness was concerned but quashed the administrative decision as regards the compensation amount. It held that the compensation amount should be set at such sum as reflected by an assessment of the value of the properties as at 2015 and that the assessment should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Government Decree no. 58/2015 (III.24). The government decree in question contained a table for the purposes of calculating social security pensions. In that table, different multiplication factors were associated with different years (from 1950 onwards), making it thus possible to calculate the current value of salaries and incomes received during previous employment. 21.  On 14 June 2017 the Kúria quashed the final judgment and remitted the case to the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court for the recalculation of the compensation amount. It held that the method of assessing the valuations applied in the first-instance judgment could not be used in the context of the case; instead, the amount to be paid should be calculated by an expert on the basis of the properties’ market values on 10 January 2015, from which the compensation already received in 1998 (see paragraph 10 above) should be deducted. 22.  Throughout the court proceedings, the Land Registry has retained a record of the dispute (perfeljegyzés). 23.  The public road contemplated by the local authority’s requisition order of 1998 (see paragraph 7 above) has yet to be constructed. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (2 October 2018), the proceedings concerning the amount of compensation due to the applicants were still pending before the domestic courts.