4.  The applicants were born 1966 and 1934 respectively, and live in Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation. 5.  The applicants brought a civil action against the Government, seeking to enforce State promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof. 6.  On 17 March 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicants and awarded 112,441.80 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 107,327.82 to the second applicant against the Ministry of Finance. 7.  On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. 8.  The enforcement proceedings were opened on 15 May 2003, but the judgment was not enforced. 9.  By interim decision of 11 August 2003, Judge R. of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic refused a request by the Ministry of Finance for obtaining the case file for the purpose of initiating supervisory-review proceedings. The Ministry had claimed that the courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law. 10.  By letter of 20 October 2003, the Supreme Court's President rejected a renewed request by the Ministry of Finance for launching the supervisory-review proceedings. 11.  On 9 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review of the judgments in the applicants' favour, founded on the same grounds as before. 12.  On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court's President issued an interim decision on remitting the applicants' cases for examination on the merits to the Supreme Court's Presidium by way of supervisory review. In the procedural part, the interim decision of 11 August 2003, but not the letter of 20 October 2003, was mentioned. 13.  On 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in a five-judge formation presided over by the Supreme Court's President, found that the lower courts had not taken into account certain provisions relating to reimbursement of State promissory notes. On that ground, relying on Articles 388 and 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Presidium quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour and dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law.