5.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1972, 1948, 1965, 1970, and 1964 respectively, and live in Golubovci.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicants intervened, as injured party, in criminal proceedings against X, in the course of which they sought 2.705,70 euros (EUR) as compensation for legal costs.
8.  On 14 October 2008 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica found X guilty and, inter alia, ordered him to pay the applicants 505.70 euros (EUR) for the costs of legal representation, without specifying what exactly was covered by this amount.
9.  On an unspecified date X and the High State Prosecutor appealed.
10.  On 30 March 2009 the applicants appealed in respect of costs and expenses. On 6 May 2009 the High Court transmitted the applicants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal (Apelacioni sud) in Podgorica.
11.  On 22 September 2009 the Court of Appeal ruled on the appeals lodged by the High State Prosecutor and X. The applicants learned of this judgment on 27 May 2010 when checking the case-file at the High Court. It was served on them on 3 October 2013.
12.  On 28 May 2010 the applicants complained to the President of the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeal had failed to rule on their appeal.
13.  On 7 June 2010 the President of the Supreme Court notified them that she had been informed by the High Court President that the case file had been “at the Court of Appeal in order for it to rule on [their] appeal in respect of costs of criminal proceedings given that it had not been ruled upon by [its] judgment of 22 September 2009”.
14.  On 24 October 2011 the applicants requested the President of the High Court to transmit the case file to the Court of Appeal given that they had learnt that the file had been archived in the High Court, contrary to what that court had said to the President of the Supreme Court.
15.  On 11 January 2012 the applicants again complained to the President of the Supreme Court.
16.  It would appear that the Court of Appeal has not ruled on the applicants’ appeal.
17.  On 14 March 2011, in the absence of any ruling by the Court of Appeal, the applicants filed a compensation claim against the State.
18.  On 17 June 2011 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica rejected the claim (odbacuje se) finding that the High Court had awarded them the costs, which judgment had become final in the meantime, and that the issue was thus res iudicata.
19.  On 7 July 2011 the High Court upheld this judgment.
20.  On 12 July 2012 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud) dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal, considering that there was no violation of Article 6 as res iudicata was indeed a procedural obstacle which prevented further proceedings. It further held that the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the costs awarded in the criminal proceedings did not mean that they could claim them by a regular civil claim (putem redovne građanske tužbe). In any event, the civil proceedings could not serve to correct the final decisions issued in criminal proceedings.
21.  On 8 December 2011 the High Court issued a decision ordering its finance department (računovodstvo) to pay the applicants’ representative the amount awarded by the High Court on 14 October 2008. This decision became final on 5 January 2012, given that no appeal was lodged against it.
22.  On 10 January 2017 the High Court informed the Agent’s office that the Court of Appeal had not ruled on the applicants’ appeal in respect of costs of criminal proceedings, but that the High Court, after its judgment of 14 October 2008 had become final, had issued a decision on 8 December 2011 ordering that the applicants’ representative be paid the sum awarded thereby.