4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Rossdorf. 5.  On 4 July 1996, together with originally three and later on six of her siblings, the applicant filed an action by stages (Stufenklage) against the wife and heiress of their late father, seeking information regarding the estate, an affidavit as to the completeness of the information provided and, at the last stage, payment of their statutory shares (Pflichtteil). 6.  On 19 February 1997, following an oral hearing on 18 December 1996 and further submissions by the plaintiffs, the Darmstadt Regional Court decided to consult the relevant files from the probate court. 7.  The second oral hearing, scheduled for 17 December 1997, was rescheduled, because one of the judges had fallen ill; it took place on 10 February 1998. At this hearing the defendant was ordered to submit the extensive private expert opinion she had previously referred to. On 15 April 1998 the court proposed a friendly settlement which the parties did not accept. In June and July 1998 three additional plaintiffs joined the action. 8.  A third oral hearing, scheduled for 3 March 1999, was cancelled after the parties had consented to written proceedings. The date of delivery of a decision was set for 3 March 1999; it was subsequently postponed to 14 April 1999, on which date the Regional Court issued an informative decision (Hinweisbeschluss). On 30 June 1999 the court handed down a partial judgment, ordering the defendant to provide information on the estate. 9.  On 23 August 1999 the defendant appealed. The plaintiffs had to retain new counsel for the appeal proceedings. The time-limit for reasoning the appeal was extended once as was the time-limit for the plaintiffs for the submission of an answer to the appeal. In May 2001 the applicant retained again different counsel. At a hearing on 19 June 2001 three plaintiffs entered into a friendly settlement with the defendant. At the second hearing on 13 November 2001 the defendant withdrew the appeal. 10.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant’s counsel applied to the Regional Court to proceed with the second and third stage of the action. On 19 December 2001 the reasoning in this regard was forwarded to the defendant’s counsel who, after having been granted two extensions of the time-limit, submitted the answer in April 2002. On 14 March 2002 another plaintiff joined the second stage of the action. On 24 July 2002, after the plaintiffs had submitted further observations within an extended time-limit, the Regional Court requested additional information. On 21 August 2002 the applicant and another plaintiff extended their claim. On 16 September 2002 the fourth plaintiff joined the second stage of the action. On 2 December 2002 the plaintiffs submitted further observations. 11.  On 18 December 2002 an oral hearing was scheduled for 26 March 2003. On 24 March 2003 the Regional Court cancelled the hearing and announced a further informative decision which was issued on 10 June 2003; the time-limit for additional observations was 31 July 2003. After an extension of this time-limit for the defendant the parties submitted their observations on 10 July 2003 and 28 August 2003 respectively. 12.  On 1 September 2004, following an oral hearing on 17 March 2004, the Regional Court requested further information by 30 September 2004. On 24 November 2004 the Regional Court ordered three expert opinions. On 29 December 2004 the applicant and two other plaintiffs applied for that evidence order to be amended. On 25 February 2005 new counsel for the defendant intervened, also applied for an amendment of the evidence order and declared a partial confession. On 20 May 2005 the Regional Court handed down a partial judgment by confession (Teilanerkenntnisurteil). 13.  On 27 May 2005 the court files were sent to the first expert who submitted his report on 7 September 2005. On 28 October 2005 the applicant and two other plaintiffs submitted a list of questions for the expert. On 30 January 2006 the Regional Court advised the plaintiffs that since the list of questions had been prepared by the plaintiffs themselves despite mandatory representation, there were doubts as to whether they could be used. On the same day the court also forwarded the files to the second expert. On 30 January 2006 the applicant and two other plaintiffs again submitted a list of questions, this time prepared by counsel. On 31 May 2006 the Regional Court ordered the defendant to provide the second expert with missing documents. On 26 October 2006 the second expert submitted his report to which the defendant objected on 29 November 2006. On 14 December 2006 the court forwarded the files to the third expert. On 10 January 2007 the applicant and two other plaintiffs personally submitted observations regarding the second expert opinion. On 20 July 2007 the third expert submitted his opinion. On 28 August 2007 and 22 October 2007 the applicant’s counsel requested to have the experts heard. On 14 November 2007 the Regional Court advised the parties that it preferred to order written supplements from the experts. It further reiterated its doubts regarding submissions by the plaintiffs themselves instead of by counsel. 14.  On 11 December 2007 the court was notified that the applicant had retained new counsel. In January 2008 the applicant’s new counsel inspected the files. On 11 February 2008 the first expert was asked to supplement his report. On 26 March 2008 he submitted the supplement. 15.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant and another plaintiff, represented by the same lawyer, applied for legal aid. 16.  On 24 November 2004 the Regional Court granted legal aid for the third stage of the action. On 20 May 2005 the court of its own motion partially amended the legal aid decision. On 8 June 2005 the applicant complained about this amendment which was thereupon again amended on 29 June 2005. 17.  On 25 February 2008 the applicant and one other plaintiff, who both had retained the same new lawyer at the end of 2007, requested to have that lawyer appointed as their legal aid lawyer. On 25 April 2008 they were advised that certain conditions had to be met to appoint their new representative. On 25 August 2009 their request was rejected. On 4 September 2009 this decision was appealed. On 2 November 2009 the Court of Appeal requested further documents from the applicant who submitted them personally on 5 December 2009. On 11 January 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 25 August 2009 and ordered the Regional Court to appoint legal aid counsel for the applicant and the other plaintiff, however, not the lawyer retained by them. On 25 January 2010 the applicant and the other plaintiff were requested to name a new lawyer within three weeks. On 4 February 2010 the applicant requested an extension of this time-limit. On 19 April 2010 a new lawyer indicated that he would be willing to represent the applicant. 18.  On 6 May 1999 the applicant submitted her first disciplinary complaint in view of the length of the proceedings which she reiterated on 20 February 2006. 19.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant and another plaintiff requested the court to fix a penalty payment because the defendant had allegedly not complied with the judgment of 30 June 1999. 20.  On 15 October 2008 the applicant lodged a motion for bias against the judge rapporteur who on 20 October 2008 submitted her official statement. On 13 January 2009 the motion was dismissed. On 30 January 2009 the applicant objected. On 14 May 2009 the objection was dismissed. 21.  On 18 August 2008 the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the files in view of criminal charges pressed by the applicant. The files were returned on 1 September 2008.