9.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows. 10.  Both applicants are pensioners. In 2002 they sued the regional department of the Pension Fund (hereinafter “Pension Fund”) for miscalculating their pensions. They argued that the Pension Fund omitted to take into consideration the entire record of their service. 11.  On 26 July 2002 the Akhtubinsk Town Court of the Astrakhan Region granted the applicants’ claims. 12.  On 3 September 2002 the Astrakhan Regional Court confirmed this judgment on appeal. 13.  On 27 January 2003 the Akhtubinsk Town Court delivered a new judgment clarifying that the applicants’ pensions should be recalculated as from 19 December 2001. 14.  On 26 January 2005 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court rejected the supervisory-review application lodged by the Pension Fund against the judgment of 26 July 2002. 15.  On 3 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgments of 26 July 2002, of 3 September 2002 and of 26 January 2005 on account of incorrect application of substantive legislation and rejected all the applicants’ claims. 16.  After the decision of the Court to strike the applicants’ case out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see paragraph 5 above) the applicants brought further proceedings before the Russian courts. 1.  The applicants’ request for reopening of proceedings following the decision of the Court to strike their applications out of its list of cases 17.  On unspecified date the applicants applied for reopening of proceedings concluded by the judgment of 3 March 2006 delivered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on the basis of newly discovered circumstances. There is no indication that the applicants claimed the pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the quashing of the domestic judgments in their favour. 18.  They argued that the decision of the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases taken on 18 September 2012 following the acknowledgment of a violation of their rights by the Government constituted a newly discovered circumstance entailing the reopening of proceedings in their case. 19.  On 15 March 2013 the Supreme Court observed that it resulted from the decision by which the Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases following the acknowledgment of a violation of the applicants’ rights by the Government that, on the one hand, all sums due under the quashed judgment had been paid to the applicants and, on the other hand, the Court did not find that the judgment of the supervisory-review court was as such contrary to the Convention. The Supreme Court thus concluded that no reopening was required in the applicants’ case. 20.  On 8 July 2013 the applicants’ supervisory-review application lodged against this decision with the Presidium of the Supreme Court was dismissed by a judge of this court. 21.  On 18 September 2013 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court refused the applicants’ request to bring a supervisory review application on their behalf under Article 391.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22.  On unspecified date the applicants complained under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the Pension Fund’s failure to enforce the judgment of 26 July 2002 prior to its quashing on 3 March 2006. They sought pension arrears under the judgment of 26 July 2002 delivered by the Akhtubinsk Town Court for the period between 19 December 2001 and 3 March 2006 with their subsequent indexation. 23.  On 7 November 2013 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow left their complaint without consideration, indicating that since there was a dispute about the applicants’ rights it should be examined in contentious proceedings and not in accordance with Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 24.  On 26 December 2013 the Moscow City Court confirmed this judgment on appeal.