4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Prague. She is the co-owner of a building and plot of land in the Strakonice region. 5.  On 21 September 1988 the other owner instituted civil proceedings before the Strakonice District Court, seeking the termination of the co-ownership arrangement and the assignment of entire property to him. On 31 October 1988 the District Court heard the co-owner. Another hearing was scheduled for 16 November 1988 but, as the applicant failed to attend, it was adjourned. On 13 December 1988 the applicant was heard by the Prague 6 District Court at the request of the Strakonice District Court. 6.  On 14 February 1989 the District Court appointed an expert in order to determine the manner in which the property should be divided. The report was submitted on 6 April 1989. 7.  Three other hearings were held by the District Court on 23 and 30 October 1990 and 7 January 1991. 8.  On 18 July 1991 the District Court ordered an on-site visit to the property. 9.  On 16 March and 14 April 1992 the applicant requested the District Court to explain why her case was not progressing. On 4 September 1992 she filed a complaint with the Ministry of Justice alleging unreasonable delays in the proceedings. 10.  On 25 September 1992 the President of the České Budějovice Regional Court (krajský soud) admitted that her complaint was justified, but explained that the District Court had serious staffing problems. 11.  On 17 June 1993 the applicant again complained of delays to the President of the Regional Court. 12.  On 9 July 1993 a geometric plan was submitted upon the District Court's request of 7 May 1992. 13.  On 5 August 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant presented her proposal for the division of the property. She finalised her proposal on 23 August 1993. Another hearing was held on 30 September 1993, but was adjourned because the professional licence of the expert had to be verified. 14.  On 25 October 1993 the District Court carried out an on-site visit to the property. On the same day, it adjourned the proceedings pending the production of the reports on the division of the property and its value. 15.  On 6 June 1994 the court appointed an expert to assess the value of the property. 16.  The next hearing was held before the District Court on 27 July 1995. At that hearing the parties disagreed on how to divide the property and settle the co-ownership issue. 17.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the case was assigned to another judge. 18.  A hearing held on 1 August 1995 was adjourned because a new expert had to be appointed to determine the manner in which the property should be divided. 19.  On 16 February 1996 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings to the Regional Court and, on 7 March 1996, to the President of the District Court. On 28 February 1996 she was informed by the latter that the length of the proceedings was due to the complex nature of the case and the judge's inexperience. 20.  On 12 April 1996 the District Court appointed a third expert to determine the manner in which the property should be divided. A hearing held on 23 June 1996 was adjourned because the expert report had not yet been submitted. This report was submitted on 24 July 1996 and sent to the applicant on 14 October 1996. The latter challenged the expert's impartiality on 19 November 1996. On 10 December 1996 the other owner of the property submitted his comments on the evaluation made of the property. 21.  On 30 April and 23 June 1997 two hearings were held by the District Court which, on 28 August 1997, appointed an expert to carry out an on-site examination of the property by 17 October 1997. According to the Government, these hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request. On 23 October 1997 the expert submitted his conclusions. 22.  On 25 February 1998 the court held a hearing at which the expert was heard. The hearing was then adjourned because a new expert had to be appointed to determine the value of the property. The applicant was invited to submit her opinion in this connection. She submitted her opinion on 30 July 1998, after having been urged to so. On 16 October 1998, after the case had been assigned to a third judge, an on-site examination of the property was carried out on 14 October 1998 in the presence of the expert. On 3 November 1998 the court ordered an expert report to evaluate the property. 23.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the case was assigned to a fourth judge. 24.  On 15 February 1999 the expert on property division matters inspected the premises. On 9 March 1999 he presented his report to the court which, on 12 July 1999, held a hearing. On 30 August 1999 it appointed, at the parties' suggestion, an expert to assess the market value of the property and its sale price. On 11 November 1999 the expert submitted his report. According to the Government, the applicant's proposal to commission a new expert report was dismissed. 25.  On 12 January 2000 a hearing was held before the District Court, but the applicant could not attend since he was ill. Another hearing took place on 10 February 2000 and was adjourned until 12 May 2000. 26.  By a judgment of 17 July 2000 the court terminated the co-ownership, assigning the property to the other owner, who was ordered to pay CZK 127,500 (4,060 euros (EUR)) to the applicant in compensation for her share of the property. 27.  On 2 March 2001 the Regional Court upheld the merits of this judgment.