4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sebastopol. 5.  On 23 July 1998 she lodged a claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court against her former employer for the recovery of salary arrears. 6.  By a judgment of 21 January 1999, the court allowed the claim and awarded the applicant certain amounts in salary arrears. 7.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to review the above judgment in the light of the newly discovered circumstances. On 2 July 1999 the court allowed the request and reopened the proceedings. 8.  By a judgment of 5 October 1999, the court rejected the applicant’s claim as lodged out of time. On 2 November 1999 the Sebastopol Court upheld that judgment. 9.  On 23 June 2000, following a protest of the President of the Sebastopol Court, the Presidium of the same court quashed the decisions of 5 October and 2 November 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 10.  By a judgment of 18 September 2003, the Nakhimovskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim for the same reasons as in its judgment of 5 October 1999. 11.  On 25 November 2003 the Sebastopol Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. The applicant stated that she had not been present at the hearing on appeal because she had not been informed of it. 12.  On 15 March 2006 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation against the lower courts’ decisions as unsubstantiated. 13.  In the course of the proceedings fourteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge dealing with the case, the defendant’s failure to appear, the latter’s requests to adjourn the hearings, the absence of an expert and the need to collect further evidence. A forensic examination was ordered in the proceedings and lasted for about eleven months (June 2001 - May 2002).