4.  The first applicant was born in 1976, the second in 1946. Both applicants live in the town of Makeyevka, Ukraine. 5.  The applicants are former employees of the State company Shachta imeni K.I. Pochenkova (“the company”). 6.  The applicants instituted proceedings against the company in the Chervonogvardeysky District Court of Makeyevka (“the first-instance court”) requesting it to recalculate the amount of salary paid to them from January 1997 to October 2001 and compensate them for losses sustained as a result of alleged miscalculations made by the company. They also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In their initial submissions the applicants stated that they had instituted these proceedings in April 2002. In their further submissions they alleged that they had instituted them on 19 December 2001. However, according to the registration stamp of the domestic court on the copies of their claims, those claims were registered by the court on 28 March 2003. The applicants did not provide any documents in support of their statement that their claims had been lodged prior to that date. 7.  By two separate judgments of 4 April 2003, the court allowed their claims and awarded the first applicant 2,075.99 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] and the second applicant UAH 2,301.46[2]. 8.  The Chervonogvardeysky District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments given in the applicants' favour. 9.  On an unspecified date the company was liquidated. In June 2003 the applicants requested the court to change the debtor in enforcement proceedings to another State company. By two separate rulings on 17 July 2003 the court allowed their requests and changed the debtor to the State company Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya. On 16 and 20 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the rulings of the first-instance court and rejected the first and second applicant's requests, respectively. By two separate rulings of 4 and 5 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the court of appeal given in the first and second applicant's cases. 10.  Later, the applicants lodged extraordinary appeals against the final decisions given in their cases by the Supreme Court. However, their appeals were unsuccessful. 11.  On 3 June 2008 the State Bailiffs' Service returned the enforcement writs to the applicants and terminated the enforcement proceedings.  The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.