4.  The first applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sebastopol. The second applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Lysychansk. 5.  On 21 December 2004 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Court of Sympheropil against the enlistment office, seeking recalculation of his pension. 6.  On 4 July 2005 the court rejected the first applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 13 December 2005 the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. In the operative part of its decision the Court of Appeal stated that the first applicant could challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months. 7.  On 20 January 2006 the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 8.  On 6 February 2006 a judge of the Supreme Court ruled that the first applicant's cassation appeal should be referred to the Higher Administrative Court, stating that the latter court was the court of cassation in administrative cases pursuant to Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005. 9.  In a ruling of 7 August 2006 a judge of the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's cassation appeal as having been lodged out of time. The judge, relying on Article 212 paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice, held that the first applicant's cassation appeal ought to have been lodged within one month of the date of the decision of the Court of Appeal. 10.  In a letter of 29 August 2006 the First Vice-President of the Higher Administrative Court informed the first applicant that he could resubmit his cassation appeal with a request for an extension of the expired time-limit. 11.  On 23 September 2006 the first applicant resubmitted his cassation appeal to the Higher Administrative Court. 12.  In June 2007 the first applicant received a letter from the Higher Administrative Court, enclosing a copy of a ruling dated 15 March 2007. By that ruling, the Higher Administrative Court declined jurisdiction to consider the first applicant's cassation appeal on the grounds that the case had been determined by the Court of Appeal under the rules of civil procedure subsequent to the entry into force of the Code of Administrative Justice on 1 September 2005, and thus that the Supreme Court was the court of cassation for the first applicant's case. 13.  The rulings of 6 February and 7 August 2006 and 15 March 2007 each stated that they were final and not subject to appeal. 14.  On 8 November 2005 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Lysychansk Town Court against his former employer, the Lysychansk Town Police Department, seeking recovery of salary arrears. 15.  On 16 March 2006 the court rejected the second applicant's claim, doing so partly on the basis that it found the claim to be unsubstantiated and partly as having been lodged out of time. On 22 May 2006 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. In the operative part of its decision the Court of Appeal stated that its decision could be appealed against to the Supreme Court by way of a cassation appeal within two months. 16.  On 18 July 2006 the second applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 17.  On 11 September 2006 a judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the second applicant's cassation appeal, holding that it was to be considered by the Higher Administrative Court. 18.  On 18 December 2006 the second applicant submitted his cassation appeal to the Higher Administrative Court. 19.  On 16 November 2007 a judge of the Higher Administrative Court found that the appeal fell to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, as the case had been considered by the lower courts under the rules of civil procedure after the entry into force of the Code of Administrative Justice on 1 September 2005. The judge ruled that the cassation appeal was to be returned to the second applicant, together with an explanation of the right to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The ruling was final and not subject to appeal.