5.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1963 and 1966 respectively and live in the town of Taganrog. 6.  On 2 July 2001 the Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region found the applicants guilty of various offences but declared that they need not serve their respective sentences because the case was time-barred. On 2 October 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 7.  On 31 January 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the decisions of 2 July and 2 October 2001 and discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicants. It found that the courts had not been in a position to decide on the applicants’ guilt because the whole case had been time-barred. 8.  The applicants sued the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for, among other things, compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage in connection with their prosecution. 9.  In its judgment of 1 March 2005 the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region rejected their claims. It reasoned as follows:
“... The court finds that, since the applicants’ guilt of the commission of the above‑mentioned crimes was established, the use of the measure of restraint was justified. This being so, the court has no reason to grant the applicants’ claims for compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention and the obligation not to leave their usual place of residence. ...” 10.  On 11 May 2005 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 1 March 2005 on appeal. It stated that:
“ ... The first instance court, in reaching its decision refusing to grant the applicants’ claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, correctly assumed that the decision of the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court dated 31 January 2002 cleared them of liability on non-exonerating grounds. In the court’s view, since the applicants’ guilt of the commission of the above-mentioned crimes was established, the application of the measure of restraint during the investigation was justified.
The court’s conclusion is a correct one, made following the examination and proper assessment of the legally relevant circumstances of the case. ...”