4.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1949, 1967 and 1973, respectively. The first and second applicants live in Dnipropetrovsk and Nikopol, respectively. The third and fourth applicants live in Kharkiv. 5.  All the applicants initiated civil actions against their former employers seeking reinstatement and recovery of related payments, as well as compensation of damages, after their allegedly unfair dismissals. 6.  On 18 June 2002 the first applicant instituted reinstatement proceedings (the first set) in the Babushkinskyy Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Babushkinskyy Court”). Following the examination and partial rejection of her claim by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction including one remittal, the first applicant appealed in cassation. On 25 August 2010 the Supreme Court opened the cassation proceedings which, according to the case file information, remain pending. 7.  Meanwhile, from 25 March 2002 to 22 November 2007, the courts of three levels of jurisdiction examined and allowed in part the first applicant’s separate claim against the same respondent company in respect of the salary arrears’ recovery (the second set of proceedings). 8.  Lastly, on 9 March 2004 the first applicant had lodged an administrative complaint against the company’s management (the third set of proceedings) which was dismissed by the Babushkinskyy Court on 12 July 2005 with an explanation that she should bring a civil claim if she wished so. On 11 December 2007 the first applicant appealed against that ruling submitting that she had found out about it only in July 2007. On 3 April 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal as being out of the time-limit (calculated from 25 July 2007).
II.  proceedings instituted by the SECOND applicant 9.  On 14 May 1999 the second applicant brought the reinstatement proceedings in the Nikopol Town Court (“the Nikopol Court”). 10.  From 5 August 1999 to 15 January 2002 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of two other claims brought by the second applicant in respect of the allegedly unfair disciplinary actions taken against him by his former employer. 11.  On 17 May 2005 the Nikopol Court allowed the second applicant’s claim in part. 12.  On 27 October 2005 and 3 September 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that judgment for the most part.
III.  proceedings instituted by the THIRD applicant 13.  On 11 May 2000 the third applicant instituted proceedings against her former employer in the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) seeking, like the other applicants, her reinstatement and recovery of certain payments. 14.  From 30 March 2004 to 10 January 2005 a forensic expert examination was undertaken at the defendant company’s request. 15.  On 23 March 2005 the Kyivskyy Court found against the third applicant. 16.  On 7 July 2005 and 16 November 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that judgment.
IV.  proceedings instituted by the FOURTH applicant 17.  On 17 August 1999 the fourth applicant brought several civil claims against his former employer at the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy (“the Zarichnyy Court”). 18.  On 24 November 1999 the Zarichnyy Court ruled against the fourth applicant. 19.  On 23 April 2001 the Court of Appeal of Sumy Region (“the Sumy Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 20.  On 4 March 2002 the Zarichnyy Court rejected the fourth applicant’s reinstatement claim and severed his other claims. 21.  On 31 July 2002 and 25 February 2003 the Sumy Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld that judgment. 22.  On 9 June 2003 the Zarichnyy Court resumed the consideration of the severed claims. 23.  By their decisions of 19 November 2004, 23 February 2005 and 21 June 2007, the courts of three levels of jurisdiction (the Zarichnyy Court, the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal and the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal sitting as a cassation instance) allowed those claims in part.