6.  The applicant was born in 1949. 7.  The applicant lived with her family in an apartment in Baku. On 18 November 1999 her apartment was damaged by fire caused by the occupants of the neighbouring apartment. The neighbouring apartment was owned by A., a police officer. According to the applicant, her apartment became unfit to live in and she and her family had to move out and find temporary accommodation. 8.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant brought an action against A., seeking monetary compensation of an amount equivalent to 10,000 US dollars for damage caused to her apartment. The Sabunchu District Court instituted civil proceedings. 9.  It appears that for several years after this the Sabunchu District Court fixed dates for several hearings, all of which were postponed either due to the defendant’s failure to appear or for other unspecified reasons. 10.  On 12 August and 29 September 2003 the applicant sent two similar letters to the President of the Sabunchu District Court, complaining of the court’s failure to conduct the proceedings in a timely manner. 11.  On 23 June 2004 and 15 December 2004 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman about the Sabunchu District Court’s failure to examine her case. 12.  On 16 February 2005 she wrote a letter addressed to the President, Chief Prosecutor, President of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal, Chairman of the Milli Majlis and other authorities, complaining about the length of proceedings in the first-instance court. 13.  It is unclear whether the applicant received any replies to her letters. 14.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date in August 2004 the Sabunchu District Court sought an expert opinion on the damage caused to the applicant’s apartment by the fire. On 27 August 2004 the expert issued an opinion, according to which the damage was estimated at 2,537,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZM). 15.  On 31 January 2005 the Sabunchu District Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment, partially upholding the applicant’s claim and awarding her AZM 2,637,000. This amount included compensation for damage of the amount estimated by the expert, as well as compensation for court fees paid by the applicant. According to the applicant, she received the full text of the judgment on 31 May 2005. 16.  The applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that the amount awarded was too low and did not reflect the actual damage caused. On 13 July 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. Following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, on 6 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.