4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  On 28 May 1990 a certain D.I. (“the plaintiff”) brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking the conclusion of a sale contract by which the applicant was to sell her flat to the plaintiff. 6.  On 6 November 1990 the applicant filed her response and a counter-claim alleging that the plaintiff did not pay her the full price for the flat. 7.  In November 1990 the plaintiff requested that the case be joined to another case pending between the same parties. In November 1991, July and November 1992 the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing. In May 1994 the applicant objected to the plaintiff’s request to have the two cases joined. 8.  The court held hearings on 21 November 1990, 14 February, 8 April and 22 November 1994 and 7 March 1995. 9.  By a judgment of 7 March 1995 the Municipal Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the applicant’s counter-claim. On 23 October 1996 the applicant appealed. 10.  On 9 June 1998 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case. 11.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held a hearing on 19 July 1999. On that date it decided to close the main hearing. 12.  On 15 October 1999 the applicant requested the court to reopen the main hearing and obtain an opinion from a financial expert. On 10 November 1999 the court accepted the applicant’s request. 13.  On 21 January 2000 the court heard witnesses and requested the applicant to advance the costs of the expert. On 26 January 2000 the applicant did so. 14.  On 2 February 2000 the court appointed an expert. On 19 May 2000 the expert submitted his report to the court which then forwarded it to the applicant, who received it on 28 August 2000. 15.  On 11 October 2000 the Municipal Court closed the main hearing. 16.  By a judgment of 11 October 2000 the court again accepted the plaintiff’s claim and declared inadmissible the applicant’s counter-claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 July 2001. 17.  The plaintiff and the applicant appealed on 10 July and 12 July 2001, respectively. In her appeal, the applicant also applied to be exempted from the court fees. The appeals were forwarded to the County Court, which received them on 8 February 2002. 18.  On 15 October 2002 the Zagreb County Court, without deciding on the admissibility or merits of the appeals, returned the case-file to the Municipal Court. It instructed the latter to decide on the applicant’s application for exemption from the court fees and the plaintiff’s ‘appeal’ which, in fact, constituted an application for a rectification of the judgment. 19.  On 14 September 2004 the Zagreb County Court accepted the appeals, quashed the Municipal Court’s judgment of 11 October 2000 and remitted the case. 20.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 8 March 2005. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. 21.  Meanwhile, on 9 May 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 14 November 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint on its merits. It examined the length of the proceedings in respect of their part following the Convention’s entry into force with respect to Croatia. The Constitutional Court found that the case was complex since it had already been remitted once and because the Municipal Court needed to obtain an expert’s opinion. It also found that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in that until May 1994 she had not objected to the plaintiff’s proposal of November 1990 to have that case joined to another one. Only then did she argue that the second proceedings were irrelevant.