5.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1962 and live in Karbinci and Štip respectively. 6.  They worked as wardens at a weekend retreat run by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the employer”). 7.  On 2 April 2001 the applicants lodged a civil claim against the employer, seeking payment of the following employment-related benefits: an overtime allowance (надоместок за прекувремена работа), night‑work allowance (надоместок за ноќна работа) and family separation allowance (надоместок за одвоен живот). They also claimed compensation in respect of annual leave in 2000 (надомест на штета поради неискористен годишен одмор) (“the compensation claim”). 8.  On 20 November 2001 the Štip Court of First Instance (“the first‑instance court”) appointed an expert who, by a letter of 12 December 2001, requested to be excluded from the case. On 6 February 2002 another expert was appointed. He drew up a report on 6 April 2002, which was supplemented on three occasions, namely 24 October 2003, 25 November 2003 and 9 January 2004. 9.  Hearings fixed for 26 June 2002, 18 December 2002, 12 and 27 February 2003 and 25 November 2003 were adjourned because of the absence of the employer, which was represented by the Attorney-General (Jавен Правобранител). On 30 January 2004 the first-instance court granted the applicants' claims. This decision was quashed by the Štip Court of Appeal on 1 September 2004. The parties did not provide a copy of the latter decision. 10.  At a hearing on 17 November 2004 the applicants supplemented their claims. On that date the employer was asked to submit documentation on the benefits claimed by the applicants, which it did on 6 July 2005. On 24 October and 16 November 2005 the expert submitted additional expert reports in view of the applicants' amended claims. 11.  On 3 February 2006 the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered the payment of the employment benefits. It relied, inter alia, on the expert reports, the employer's Rules on Salary and Other Allowances (“the Rules”), and a court decision in case П.бр.1262/97 (see paragraph 16 below). It established that the applicants' residence had been 40 km away from their place of work, that they had carried out their working duties for one week at a time without interruption, and that during that time they had been separated from their families. The employer did not have special rules regarding the payment of employment-related benefits for such employees. The applicants' salary had been calculated as if they had worked full-time despite the fact that they had actually worked fewer hours. The shortfall in the regular working hours (редовно работно време) had been compensated for by night work, for which the employer had not paid any allowance to the applicants. The court did not award the applicants the night-work allowance, but only a 35% increase, as specified in the Rules. On the other hand, it awarded them the allowances for overtime and family separation, plus the increase set forth in the Rules. The court dismissed the applicants' compensation claim. 12.  On 15 March 2006 the employer appealed. On 13 April 2006 the Štip Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the lower court's decision in respect of the benefits claimed. It endorsed the statement of facts, but found that the substantive law had been applied incorrectly. It held that the applicants had not been entitled to receive the benefits claimed since they had obtained the same salary as if they had worked full-time, although they had actually worked fewer hours. Relying on a Government Decree on the calculation of allowances for employees of administrative bodies (“the Decree”), the court stated that the applicants had not been entitled to a family separation allowance since their place of residence had been adjacent to the employer's seat. 13.  The applicants were served with this decision on 8 May 2006. 14.  On 4 July 2006 the applicants filed a request with the public prosecutor for the protection of legality in which they alleged that the substantive law had been applied incorrectly. They further complained that the courts, including the Štip Court of Appeal, had granted identical claims in other cases filed by them. According to the applicants, the public prosecutor rejected their request.