4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kirovograd. 5.  In March 1996 Mr. D. instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking compensation for expenses of the funeral of his brother, the applicant's husband. On 24 July 1996 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd (hereinafter “the Leninsky Court”) allowed this claim in part. On 12 September 1996 the Kirovograd Regional Court upheld this decision. 6.  On 1 October 1997 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court, following the protest of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, quashed all previous decisions in the case and remitted it for a fresh consideration. 7.  On 22 November 1997 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against D., claiming that she was entitled to property and compensation in connection with the administration of her late husband's estate. 8.  On 11 December 1997 the Leninsky Court declined to consider the counterclaim because the applicant had failed to pay the court fee. 9.  On 18 December 1997 the applicant re-lodged her counterclaim. 10.  On 29 September 1998, on the applicant's request, the case was transferred to the Kirovograd District Court. 11.  On 20 May 1999 the proceedings were resumed. 12.  On 10 October 2000, following Mr D.'s modification of his claim, the hearings were postponed until 14 November 2000. 13.  On 14 November 2000, following the applicant's modification of her claim, the hearings were postponed until 11 December 2000. 14.  On 21 June 2001 the Kirovograd District Court allowed in part both the original claim and the counterclaim. 15.  On 17 October 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Regional Court”) modified the judgment as to D.'s claim. It also quashed the judgment in the part concerning the applicant's counterclaim and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 16.  On 27 December 2001 the Regional Court assigned the case to the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd (hereinafter “the Kirovsky Court”). 17.  On 22 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of 17 October 2001. 18.  The proceedings were resumed in the Kirovsky Court in June 2002. 19.  On 23 March 2003 the proceedings were suspended until examination by the Leninsky Court of the criminal case instituted upon the applicant's request against Mr D. as to the alleged forgery of his brother's (the applicant's husband's) will. 20.  In April 2003 the applicant lodged with the Kirovsky Court a request to review the judgment of 21 June 2001 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances. 21.  On 22 December 2003 this request was rejected. 22.  In April 2004 the applicant lodged a request with the Supreme Court seeking to review the decision of 21 June 2001 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances. 23.  On 24 March 2004 the Leninsky Court terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr D. as prosecution had become time-barred. On 1 June and 7 December 2004 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this ruling. 24.  On 15 April 2004 the Kirovsky Court requested the Leninsky Court about the outcome of criminal proceedings against Mr D. 25.  On 25 May 2004 the civil proceedings were resumed. 26.  On 10 December 2004 the case-file was transferred to the Supreme Court for examination of the applicant's request to review the judgment of 21 June 2001 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances. 27.  On 31 October 2005 the Supreme Court rejected this request. 28.  Since January 2006 the proceedings are pending before the Kirovsky Court.