5.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1961 respectively and live in the city of Poltava. 6.  In May 1996 the Poltava Regional Police Department (hereinafter – the PRPD) instituted criminal proceedings for tax evasion against Mr V., who is, respectively, the son of the first applicant and the brother of the second applicant. On 28 May 1996 the investigator placed Mr V. under an obligation not to abscond. 7.  On 4 September 1996, following the failure of Mr V. to appear for interrogation and in the absence of information about his whereabouts, an arrest warrant for Mr V. was issued. 8.  On 6 August 1997 the PRPD investigator issued an order for interception and seizure of the postal and telegraphic correspondence of the applicants (hereinafter – “the interception order”) on the following grounds:
“The private entrepreneur Mr V., during the period between 1 January 1994 and 1 January 1996, intentionally did not pay taxes to the State budget in the amount of UAH 12,889[1], having caused damage and substantial losses to the State.
On 28 May 1996 the preventive measure – obligation not to abscond – was ordered in respect of Mr V., but, having been summoned by the investigator, Mr V. did not come to him, and his whereabouts at the present are unknown. On 4 September 1996 the preventive measure – detention – was ordered in respect of Mr V.
... Mr V. may inform his mother and brother about his whereabouts, using the postal and telegraphic correspondence.”
No time-limit for the interception had been fixed in the order. 9.  On 11 August 1997 the President of the Zhovtnevyy District Court approved the interception order by having signed it. The applicants maintained that they had learned about this order by chance at the end of 1998. 10.  On 4 May 1998 the criminal case against Mr V. was terminated as being time-barred. 11.  According to the applicants, Mr V. had appeared in summer 1998 and met with the investigator in his case. During this meeting he found out about the interception order. 12.  On 28 May 1999 the PRPD investigator cancelled the interception order on the grounds that the criminal case against Mr V. had been closed and there were no further need to intercept the applicants’ correspondence. This cancellation was approved and signed by the President of the Zhovtnevyy District Court the same day. 13.  By letter of 19 July 1999, the Poltava Regional Prosecutor’s Office, in reply to their complaint, informed the applicants that the interception of their correspondence had been ordered lawfully and therefore the law-enforcement officers incurred no liability. 14.  On 14 November 1999, according to the Government, the whereabouts of Mr V. were established by the investigation. 15.  By letter of 6 January 2000 to Mr V., in reply to his complaints about the criminal proceedings against him, the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the GPO”) noted, inter alia, that the interception order was not well-founded. 16.  By letter of 1 February 2000, the first applicant was informed that on 15 August 1997 (15 September 1997 according to the Government) a letter addressed to her had been intercepted by the police but, as it contained no information about the whereabouts of Mr V., it was not seized but was forwarded to her. 17.  On 20 January 2000 the applicants claimed compensation from the Head of the PRPD for the damage caused by ordering the interception of their correspondence. 18.  By letter of 27 January 2000, the Head of the PRPD informed the second applicant that the interception order had been lawful and that, therefore, there were no grounds to award damages. 19.  By letter of 19 November 2000, the Head of the PRPD informed the second applicant that the seizure of correspondence had been in compliance with the law and that the applicant had no right to compensation, given that the criminal case against his brother had been terminated on non-exonerative grounds. 20.  By letter of 21 November 2000, the Poltava Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the second applicant that the issue of compensation was within the competence of the courts. 21.  On 18 February 2000 the applicants lodged a claim with the Leninsky District Court of Poltava against the PDPR seeking compensation for the moral damage caused by the interference with their correspondence. In support of their claim, they referred to the letter of the GPO of 6 January 2000, where it was acknowledged that the interception order lacked grounds. 22.  On 11 October 2001 the Leninsky District Court found against the applicants. The court concluded that the interception order had been lawful and well-founded, the criminal proceedings against Mr V. having been terminated on non-exonerative grounds (нереабілітуючі обставини), and that the applicants did not prove that they had suffered any moral damage due to the interference with their correspondence. The court held that the applicants’ claim was unsubstantiated and that the GPO’s letter of 6 January 2000 could not be a ground for awarding them any damages. It, therefore, rejected the applicants’ claim in full. 23.  On 8 January 2002 the Appellate Court of Poltava Region upheld the decision of the first instance court. 24.  On 9 February 2004 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ request for leave to appeal in cassation.