4.  The applicants were born in 1936 and live in Kharkiv. 5.  The applicants used to work at a State enterprise as employees handling a sports stadium. On 10 January 2001 they were dismissed due to downsizing. 6.  On 8 February 2001 they instituted separate sets of proceedings before the Kyivskyy District Court of City of Kharkiv against their former employer, seeking reinstatement and compensation. 7.  On 9 February 2001 the court joined the two sets of proceedings. The first applicant further represented the second applicant in the joined proceedings. 8.  On 5 June 2001 the first applicant filed a complaint with the court, alleging that on 30 May 2001 the judge had refused to allow him to study the case file and that on 31 May 2001 he had been beaten by the presiding judge on the premises of the court. 9.  On 18 February 2002 the first applicant challenged the presiding judge. The judge declined to withdraw from the case. 10.  On an unspecified day the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Council of Judges against the presiding judge, alleging that the length of the proceedings was excessive. In a letter of 8 July 2003, addressed to the acting president of the court, the Council of Judges noted that the case had not been dealt with on the merits since 2001 and invited the latter to take action. 11.  On 27 August 2003, upon the first applicant’s new request, the presiding judge withdrew from the case. 12.  On 27 January 2004 the first applicant challenged the newly appointed presiding judge. The next day the motion was refused. 13.  On 28 January 2004 the court delivered a judgment confirming the legality of the applicants’ dismissal. The court ordered amendments to be made in one of the applicants’ labour book and awarded him a sum in salary arrears. The first applicant appealed. 14.  On 19 October 2004 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. 15.  On 4 May 2007 the Appellate Court of Lugansk Region, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the first applicant’s appeal in cassation. 16.  The latter unsuccessfully sought extraordinary review of the case. 17.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants amended their claims and requested the national court to seek additional documents, including those from third persons, on several occasions. Out of thirty-one scheduled hearings, seven were adjourned because of the failure of the respondent’s representative to appear, four hearings were postponed as the judge was busy with another case or absent for other professional or private reasons, and four were adjourned due to the applicants’ non-appearance. The national court had to renew, at the first applicant’s request, the time-limit for lodging appeal which resulted in a delay of about three months.