5.  The applicants are husband and wife. The first applicant was born in 1959 and the second applicant was born in 1981. Both live in Dorset, the United Kingdom. 6.  On 10 April 2007 Mr and Mrs G. initiated civil proceedings against the applicants before the Monção Court (domestic proceedings no. 165/07.0TBMNC), with a view to obtaining recognition of their ownership of a property and a declaration that the applicants had no right of way (servidão de passagem) over that property. 7.  On 14 May 2007 the applicants were summonsed. On the same day the court was informed of the death of Mr G. and the proceedings were consequently suspended. 8.  On an unknown date Mr G.’s eight heirs were admitted as parties to the proceedings (habilitação de herdeiros). The proceedings restarted on 19 June 2007. 9.  On an unknown date in September 2007 the applicants lodged their submissions in reply (contestação) and a counterclaim (pedido reconvencional). 10.  After having realised that the applicants had not communicated their submissions in reply to the claimants, on 26 October 2007 the court ordered the applicants to do so. 11.  Later, the court realised that the claimants had not complied with the legal requirement to register the proceedings with the Land Registry Office (Conservatória do Registo Predial). On 18 December 2007 the proceedings were suspended until an unknown date on which the claimants complied with that requirement. 12.  On 24 April 2008 the court realised that the applicants had also not complied with the legal requirement to register the counterclaim with the Land Registry Office. The court ordered them to do so within forty days. The applicants requested that the deadline be extended by thirty days. 13.  On an unknown date the applicants lodged an application for evidence to be immediately obtained from a witness who was residing in the United Kingdom. Considering that the applicants had not supplemented the application by complying with the necessary legal requirements for such a procedural act, the court dismissed the application on 26 January 2009. 14.  On 8 May 2009 the court gave a preliminary decision (despacho saneador) setting out the facts that had already been established and those that had yet to be decided. 15.  On an unknown day of January 2010 a videoconference to obtain witness evidence took place. 16.  On an unknown date a hearing was scheduled for an unknown day in April 2010. 17.  On the scheduled day the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of the claimants. 18.  On 29 September 2010 a hearing was held. Twelve other hearings took place, the last of which was on 12 December 2011. 19.  On 3 March 2012 the Monção Court ruled against the applicants. On an unknown date the applicants appealed against that decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal. 20.  On 20 November 2012 the Guimarães Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. On 5 December 2012 the applicants appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice. 21.  On 24 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and upheld the previous judgment. The applicants’ lawyer was notified of the Supreme Court of Justice judgment on 7 May 2013.