4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1950, respectively. The first applicant, Mr Kryukov, lives in Kolpashevo, the Tomsk Region. The second applicant, Mr Lantsev, died on 28 October 2007. On 10 March 2008 his widow, Ms Raisa Pavlovna Lantseva, stated her wish to pursue the complaint of her late husband before the Court. 5.  On 30 June 1997 the applicants were dismissed from work on the grounds of redundancy. 6.  On 17 July 1997 the applicants sued their former employer for reinstatement, salary arrears and compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 7.  On 10 September 1997 the Kolpashevo Town Court of the Tomsk Region dismissed the applicants’ claims in full. 8.  On 17 October 1997 the aforesaid judgment was quashed further to the applicants’ appeal by the Tomsk Regional Court and the case was remitted for fresh examination. 9.  On 16, 20 and 22 January 1998 the applicants amended their claims. 10.  On 18 March 1998 the hearing was adjourned until 20 April 1998 at the defendant’s request in view of its representative’s health condition. 11.  On 23 April 1998 the Town Court allowed the applicants’ claims in part. 12.  On 8 September 1998 the Regional Court upheld the judgment in part but remitted the claim for salary arrears for a fresh examination. 13.  On 25 November and 8 December 1998 the hearings were adjourned at the applicants’ request. 14.  On 15 December 1998 the applicants further amended their claims and asked for a forensic accountant to be appointed. The proceedings were adjourned until 11 February 1999 to allow the accountant to prepare his report. 15.  On 11 February 1999 the applicants lodged a new claim. 16.  By the judgment of 11 February 1999 the Town Court partly allowed the applicants’ claims. 17.  On 23 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination. 18.  On 26 August and 30 November 1999 the hearings were adjourned. 19.  On 13 January 2000 the applicants amended their claims. 20.  On 14 January 2000 the applicants’ claims were satisfied in part by the Town Court. 21.  On 15 February 2000 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court. 22.  On 13 March 2002 the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed judgments of 14 January and 15 February 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 23.  The hearings of 10 April, 20 August and 10 October 2002 were adjourned. 24.  On 23 May 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 30 July 2002 for collecting additional evidence, on 1 November 2002 - for obtaining a graphologist’s report, and on 26 May 2003 – for taking further evidence from the defendant. 25.  On 31 July and 31 October 2002 and 27 May 2003 the applicants lodged new claims. 26.  On 4 June 2003 the proceedings were stayed as the defendant company was in the process of reorganisation which lasted until 19 July 2004. 27.  By judgment of 1 October 2004, the Town Court granted the applicants’ claims in part. 28.  On 14 December 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.