4.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1951 respectively and live in Lysychansk, in the Lugansk region, Ukraine. 5.  At the material time they worked at the State Machinery and Repair Plant (ДВАТ «Ремонтно-механічний завод» – “the plant”). In 2004 they were dismissed. Before the domestic authorities they were represented by a lawyer, M. 6.  On 13 March 2000 the Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the plant. 7.  On 10 April 2001 the court commenced the procedure of financial rehabilitation of the plant and appointed a bankruptcy trustee responsible for that procedure. It is not clear from the materials submitted whether the rehabilitation procedure has ended or is still pending. 8.  On 12 October 2004 the Commercial Court of the Lugansk Region (the former Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration) ordered the bankruptcy trustee to inform the creditors of the measures adopted in the course of the debtor’s rehabilitation and to provide them with financial documents concerning the payment of salary arrears. The applicants maintained that the trustee did not comply with this decision. 9.  By the decisions of 29 November 2004, 11 April and 6 June 2005 the Labour Disputes Commission and the Lysychansk Town Court awarded the first applicant salary arrears and other payments due to him from his former employer in the total amount of 13,539.56 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1]. 10.  By the decisions of 29 November 2004, 5 April and 4 May 2005 the same authorities awarded the second applicant salary arrears and other payments due to him from his former employer in the total amount of UAH 6,281.11[2]. 11.  Furthermore, in decisions of 5 and 11 April 2005 the Lysychansk Town Court, inter alia, ordered the applicants’ reinstatement. 12.  In so far as the above-mentioned decisions became final, the local department of the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. 13.  According to a letter of 6 September 2006 from the local department of the State Bailiffs’ Service, the parts of the decisions of 5 and 11 April 2005 relating to the applicants’ reinstatement were fully enforced and the relevant enforcement proceedings were terminated by decisions of the State Bailiffs’ Service of 17 April 2005. The applicants submitted that in fact they were not reinstated as they were still not admitted to their workplaces. They did not, however, inform the Court whether they had challenged before the domestic courts the decisions of 17 April 2005 to terminate the enforcement proceedings in question. 14.  The applicants requested the local prosecutor’s office to intervene in the enforcement proceedings and to institute criminal proceedings against the relevant persons, but apparently to no avail. 15.  The applicants maintained that these decisions remain unenforced.