4.  The first applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tallinn. The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Luiste village, Rapla County. 5.  The applicants were married form 1989 to 2006. The first applicant gave birth to child K. on 20 September 2002. The second applicant was recorded in the civil status records as the father of the child. 6.  On 10 October 2003 the first applicant lodged an action for divorce and division of marital property. 7.  On 25 October 2004 the first applicant lodged an action against the second applicant with the Harju County Court (previously named the Tallinn City Court). She sought alimony for their child K. 8.  On 11 January 2005 a preliminary hearing was held. Subsequently, the parties submitted evidence and made requests concerning evidence. 9.  At a preliminary hearing of 25 April 2005 the first applicant requested adjournment of the hearing as only the second applicant’s representative but not the second applicant himself had appeared. 10.  On 27 April 2005 the second applicant filed a separate action to establish that he is not the father of the child K. and to contest the civil status record (civil case no. 2-3307/109, filiation proceedings). 11.  On 2 June 2005 the second applicant requested the suspension of the proceedings in the alimony case, referring to the above filiation proceedings. On 9 September 2005 the first applicant submitted that she did not dispute the request for the suspension of the proceedings, although she disproved the submission of the request by the second applicant. 12.  On 14 October 2005 the County Court granted the second applicant’s request and suspended the proceedings until the delivery of the judgment in the civil case no. 2-3307/109. 13.  In the meantime, on 12 May 2005, in the course of the filiation proceedings, the Harju County Court decided to carry out DNA analyses of the child and the second applicant. The court obliged the first applicant to take the child to an expert to take DNA samples. The first applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision. On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. However, the first applicant did not take the child to analyses. According to the available information, on 10 May 2012 the Harju County Court dismissed the filiation action. 14.  In the meantime, on 14 June 2007 the first applicant requested that the proceedings concerning the alimony be resumed. She referred to the Supreme Court’s recent practice according to which the contestation of the civil status record did not affect the contesting person’s obligation to provide subsistence for the child. 15.  On 20 June 2007 the Harju County Court resumed the alimony proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 27 August 2007. The hearing was postponed at the second applicant’s request. 16.  On 25 July 2007 the second applicant made a compromise proposal; the time-limit for the first applicant’s reply was extended until 10 October 2007. 17.  Between September and November 2007 the parties submitted evidence and opinions and made requests. Among others, the second applicant requested that the proceedings be not resumed and, later, that a hearing be adjourned. The first applicant supplemented her claim. 18.  On 23 October 2007 the County Court requested evidence from banks and the Tax and Customs Board and obliged the second applicant to submit documents. 19.  On 30 November 2007 a hearing was held. 20.  On 11 January 2008 the Harju County Court delivered its judgment. It granted the first applicant’s action in part and ordered the second applicant to pay monthly alimony of 3,000 kroons (EEK) (approximately 192 euros (EUR)) for the child. Both applicants appealed to the Tallinn Court of Appeal. 21.  On 9 May 2008 the Tallinn Court of Appeal upheld the County Court’s judgment. Both applicants challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment before the Supreme Court. 22.  On 19 November 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remitted the case to the appeal court for a new examination. 23.  On 21 May 2009 the Tallinn Court of Appeal quashed the Harju County Court’s judgment of 11 January 2008 and remitted the case for a new examination to the first-instance court. The first applicant appealed considering that the appeal court itself should have decided the case. 24.  On 7 September 2009 the Supreme Court refused the first applicant leave to appeal. 25.  On 25 January 2010 the first applicant amended her statement of claim, submitted voluminous new evidence and requested application of interim measures. 26.  On 8 February 2010 a hearing was held with the participation of the parties’ representatives. The court obliged the parties to appear in person to the next hearing. 27.  On 17 February 2010 the County Court adopted at the first applicant’s request an interim measure ordering the second applicant to make monthly alimony payments of EEK 2,175 (EUR 139). 28.  On 12 April 2010 the second applicant requested postponement of the hearing scheduled for 14 April 2010 because of an illness of his representative. 29.  In April and May 2010 the first applicant supplemented her statement of claim and submitted new evidence. The parties exchanged submissions. 30.  On 3 June 2010 a hearing took place with the participation of the applicants. 31.  By a judgment of 5 July 2010 the Harju County Court ordered the second applicant to make monthly alimony payments of EEK 5,000 (EUR 320). Both parties appealed. 32.  By a judgment of 6 October 2010 the Tallinn Court of Appeal overturned the County Court’s judgment in respect of the sum of the alimony payments. It set the monthly sum of payments at EEK 3,550 (EUR 227). Both applicants challenged the Court of Appeal’s judgment before the Supreme Court. 33.  On 26 January 2011 the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.