5.  The first applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Lugansk. The second applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Slatino. 6.  In April 2005 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk against the Lugansk Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension. 7.  On 12 July 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 October 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months. 8.  On 1 December 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions. 9.  On 26 December 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court, relying on paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Code of Administrative Justice, ruled that the applicant's appeal in cassation should be remitted to the Higher Administrative Court. 10.  By a ruling of 24 March 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time. 11.  In October 2004 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Kharkiv against the Kharkiv Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension. 12.  On 20 May 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 September 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months. 13.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions. 14.  By letter dated 30 November 2005, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal in cassation had been remitted to the Higher Administrative Court. 15.  By a ruling of 11 April 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time.