5.  The first applicant, Mr E. B., is an Austrian national born in 1947. 6.  On 23 September 1982 the Innsbruck Regional Court convicted the applicant of homosexual acts with consenting adolescents within the age bracket of 14 to 18, an offence under Article 209 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. On 10 August 1983 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to seven months’ imprisonment. 7.  On 18 November 1999 the Vienna Regional Court convicted the applicant of other offences under the same provision and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court partly acquitted him and reduced the sentence to one year’s imprisonment. 8.  On 6 April 2001 the Vienna Regional Court convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal. 9.  All those convictions were entered in the applicant’s criminal record. 10.  On 8 May 2006 the first applicant applied to have each conviction under Article 209 of the Criminal Code deleted from his criminal record on the grounds that Article 209 of the Criminal Code had been repealed by the Constitutional Court in the meantime. On 20 October 2006 the Federal Minister of the Interior dismissed his application. 11.  On 29 November 2006 the applicant applied for legal aid in order to lodge a complaint against the Federal Minister’s decisions with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. 12.  On 18 December 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the request for legal aid, holding that the applicant’s complaint had no prospect of success. It noted that in a previous judgment of 4 October 2006 it had found that the administrative authorities were only entitled to execute the orders of the criminal courts concerning registration, but that they had no competence to review on their own initiative the lawfulness of the respective order on its merits. Since a review of the lawfulness of an ordinary court’s decision by an administrative authority would be in contradiction to the separation of powers under constitutional law, the Federal Ministry of the Interior’s decision had not breached the law. 13.  On 12 December 2006 the Administrative Court, referring to the Constitutional Court’s case-law, according to which the authorities were only entitled to check whether a mistake had occurred when a conviction was registered, but not to decide on the lawfulness of an entry on their own initiative, dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid on the grounds that his complaint lacked any prospect of success. 14.  On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a request for a renewal of each set of criminal proceedings which had led to his convictions under Article 209 of the Criminal Code with the Supreme Court in order to seek the quashing of the convictions, with a view to their subsequent deletion from his criminal record. 15.  By decisions of 27 September 2007, 23 October 2007 and 15 November 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected the application. As the highest instance for criminal proceedings, it found that it had, in principle, the competence to take the necessary decisions in fulfillment of its obligations arising from the Federal Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in order to safeguard the principle of legal certainty, it had to apply the same admissibility criteria as the European Court of Human Rights under the Convention. This meant that applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention per analogiam, a request for a renewal of the criminal proceedings had to be submitted within a period of six months after the conviction had become final and that the applicant had to have exhausted domestic remedies. It rejected the applicant’s request because it had been introduced outside of the six-month period and, as regards the first set of proceedings, on the additional ground that the applicant had failed to raise his complaint before the domestic courts. Furthermore, it noted that the matter had already been examined by the Supreme Court in the first set of proceedings. 16.  The second applicant, Mr H. G. is an Austrian national born in 1960. 17.  On 31 May 1989 the Leoben Regional Court convicted the second applicant of homosexual acts with consenting adolescents within the age bracket of 14 to 18, an offence under Article 209 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment. The conviction was entered in the criminal record. 18.  On 25 September 2005 the second applicant applied to have the conviction under Article 209 deleted from his criminal record, on the grounds that that provision had been repealed in the meantime. On 24 February 2006 the Federal Ministry of the Interior dismissed the application. 19.  On 3 April 2006 the second applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, and applied for legal aid. 20.  On 11 October 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint for lack of any prospect of success. In its reasoning it referred to its judgment of 4 October 2006 (see paragraph 12 above). 21.  On 21 March 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the mere repeal of a criminal provision by the Constitutional Court or the legislator, without any specific order of a competent court, as in the instant case, could not give rise, under the Criminal Record Act, to the administrative authorities deleting a conviction that had been lawfully entered in a person’s criminal record. The authorities were only entitled to check whether a mistake had occurred when the conviction had initially been recorded. 22.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request for a renewal of the criminal proceedings to the Supreme Court order to seek the quashing of the conviction, with a view to its subsequent deletion from his criminal record. 23.  On 1 August 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the application. As the highest instance for criminal proceedings, it found that it had in principle the competence to take the necessary decisions in fulfillment of its obligations arising from the Federal Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in order to safeguard the principle of legal certainty, it had to apply the same admissibility criteria as the European Court of Human Rights under the Convention. This meant that, applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention per analogiam, a request for a renewal of the criminal proceedings had to be submitted within a period of six months after the conviction had become final and that the applicant had to have exhausted domestic remedies. It rejected the applicant’s request since it had been introduced outside of the six-month period. 24.  On 24 March 1994 the Leoben Regional Court convicted the second applicant again of homosexual acts with consenting adolescents within the age bracket of 14 to 18, an offence under Article 209 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. 25.  On 20 September 1994 the Supreme Court rejected a plea of nullity lodged by the second applicant and on 4 November 1994 the Graz Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by him. The conviction was entered in the criminal record. 26.  On 25 September 2005 the second applicant applied to have the conviction under Article 209 deleted from his criminal record. On 24 February 2006 the Federal Ministry of the Interior dismissed the application. 27.  On 3 April 2006 the second applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, and applied for legal aid. 28.  The Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint on 11 October 2006 because, in accordance with its case-law, it lacked any prospect of success. 29.  On 21 March 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the second applicant’s complaint. 30.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request for a renewal of the criminal proceedings with the Supreme Court in order to seek the quashing of the conviction, with a view to its subsequent deletion from his criminal record. 31.  On 23 October 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the request for the same reasons as those given in its judgment of 1 August 2007 (see paragraph 23 above). 32.  The third applicant, Mr A. S., is an Austrian national born in 1949. 33.  On 25 May 1999 the Graz Regional Court convicted the applicant of homosexual acts with consenting adolescents within the age bracket of 14 to 18, an offence under Article 209 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and ordered his detention in a secure psychiatric institution, pursuant to Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. The conviction was entered in his criminal record. 34.  On 25 September 2005 the third applicant applied to have the conviction deleted from his criminal record. On 22 February 2006 the Federal Ministry of the Interior dismissed his application. 35.  On 3 April 2006 the third applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court against the Federal Minister’s decision. 36.  On 11 October 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the case because, in accordance with its case-law, it lacked any prospect of success. 37.  On 21 March 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. 38.  On an unspecified date the third applicant lodged a request for a renewal of the criminal proceedings with the Supreme Court in order to seek the quashing of the conviction with a view to its subsequent deletion from his criminal record. 39.  On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the request for the same reasons as those given in its judgment of 1 August 2007 (see paragraph 23 above). 40.  The fourth applicant, Mr A. V., is an Austrian national born in 1968. 41.  On 29 August 1997 the Vienna Regional Court convicted the fourth applicant of homosexual acts with consenting adolescents within the age bracket of 14 to 18, an offence under Article 209 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. As the fourth applicant did not appeal against that decision, it became final. The conviction was entered in his criminal record. 42.  On 25 September 2005 the fourth applicant applied to have the conviction deleted from his criminal record, because Article 209 had been repealed in the meantime. On 24 February 2006 the Federal Ministry of the Interior dismissed his application. 43.  On 3 April 2006 the fourth applicant lodged a complaint against the Federal Minister’s decision with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. 44.  On 4 October 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the administrative authorities were only entitled to execute the orders of the criminal courts concerning the recording of convictions, but that they had no competence to review on their own initiative whether the respective order was lawful on its merits. Since a review of the lawfulness of an ordinary court’s decision by an administrative authority would be in contradiction to the separation of powers under constitutional law, the Federal Ministry of the Interior’s decision had not breached the law. 45.  On 21 March 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the fourth applicant’s complaint. 46.  On 30 November 2006 the fourth applicant lodged a request for a renewal of the criminal proceedings with the Supreme Court in order to seek the quashing of the conviction with a view to its subsequent deletion from his criminal record. 47.  On 6 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the request for the same reasons as those given in its judgment of 1 August 2007 (see paragraph 23 above).