This raised a further complex of constitutional issues, as a number of private individuals challenged the constitutionality of the reunification treaties; specifically in respect of the levels of compensation and restitution offered to persons whose property had been expropriated between 1945 and 1949 under Soviet authority. These plaintiffs argued that, as the Federal Republic had historically claimed its sovereignty to be a continuation of that of the former governments of the German Reich, so post-1990, it should provide restitution in favour of expropriated property owners (or their heirs) for actions in the period when German sovereign power had been dormant. The cases were eventually heard before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2005; who found consistently in favour of the post-1990 actions of the Federal Republic - hence rejecting arguments that claimed that the sovereignty of the Federal Republic maintained that of a continuing but dormant post-war German Reich; declaring that the four Allied Powers had, in the years 1945 to 1949, exercised "an occupation sui generis following a war and unconditional capitulation, which conferred powers of 'sovereignty' on the occupying forces."[38]