4.  The applicant lives in Nicosia. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicant is the registered owner of immovable property adjacent to a salt lake in the district of Larnaca. In 1981 the applicant's property was included in a planning zone (Z4) with a building density coefficient applicable for development purposes of only 1 per cent. Subsequently, on 1 December 1990, on the basis of the Law on Town Planning and Residential Land Use and the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme, the property was included in a different zone (Δα2) with a higher building density coefficient of 5 per cent and was classified as a town park. 7.  On 16 October 1991 the applicant applied to the District Planning Office of Larnaca for a planning permit for the construction of a house that would cover 17 per cent of the relevant plot. 8.  On 25 November 1991 the District Planning Office rejected her application on the grounds that the coefficient of the proposed construction was higher than that permitted by the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme. 9.  On 6 December 1991 the applicant lodged a hierarchical recourse with the Ministry of Interior. The applicant was informed by letter dated 29 March 1993 that the Ministerial Council had dismissed her recourse on 18 February 1993 for the same reasons. 10.  On 28 June 1993 the applicant filed a claim for compensation before the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant claimed damages for the diminution in the value of her property due to the authorities' refusal to grant her a planning permit. Her claim was dismissed by the Ministry on 31 October 1996. In its decision the Ministry noted that, on the basis of the examination of an evaluation of the property prepared by the District Land Office and her application, it found that that there had not been any diminution in the property's value because of the authorities' refusal to grant her a planning permit and consequently, by the application of the Law on Town Planning and the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme. Finally, it noted that the property had been included in a planning zone with a higher coefficient. 11.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant filed a civil action (no. 55/97) with the District Court of Larnaca against the Attorney-General of the Republic and the Ministry of Interior. The applicant claimed the amount of 24,330 Cypriot pounds (CYP) as damages in respect of the diminution in the value of her property which was caused by the application of the Law on Town Planning and Land Use and/or the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme and/or due to the restrictions imposed. She invoked Article 23 of the Constitution in respect to the latter. 12.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant also filed her statement of claim. Following the defendants' failure to file their defence within the set fourteen day time-limit, the Registrar sent a notice to the defendants on 16 September 1999 informing them that upon failure to file their defence within fourteen days after the giving of the notice, a decision could be issued in the applicant's favour. By letter dated 5 October 1999 the defendants requested an extension of twenty days. This was granted by the court. On 20 April 1999 the defendants filed an ex parte application requesting an additional extension. The application was set for hearing for 10 May 2000. On that date the court granted the application giving the defendants until 28 June 2000 to file their defence. This was filed on 26 June 2000. 13.  On 24 July 2000 the applicant requested the court to fix the case for hearing. On 11 August 2000 the court set the case for instructions for 27 September 2000 and on the latter date it fixed the case for hearing for 1 February 2001. 14.  On 1 February 2001 the case was adjourned until 14 May 2001 at the defendants' request. The applicant consented to the adjournment and the court noted that it also had another case to deal with that day. The case was then adjourned twice until 5 November 2001 at the applicant's request in view of the fact that her lawyer was unable to attend: one was requested on 14 May 2001 and the court adjourned the case until 9 October 2001 and one was requested on 8 October 2001 and the court adjourned the case until 5 November 2001. On the latter date the hearing of the case commenced. 15.  The hearing was fixed for 10 December 2001 and then was adjourned at the applicant's request until 14 January 2002 since her lawyer was unable to attend due to hearings he had in other cases. The court was reluctant in granting the request in view of the fact that the case had been pending before it for a while. It noted that the hearing had been fixed to take place more than a month before and that the applicant's lawyer should have informed the court at the time that he had other hearings or he should not have taken on other hearings on the same date giving priority to the present case which had been pending for a longer time before the courts. 16.  On 14 January 2002 the case was adjourned until 18 February 2002 at the parties' request. The hearing continued on the latter date and was concluded on 21 June 2002. Within this period four adjournments took place; two at the defendants' request, one at the applicant's request and one at the parties' request. 17.  The only oral evidence heard at the trial was that of the applicant's valuation expert. This expert gave evidence as to his assessments of the diminution in the property's value due to the limitations imposed and of the compensation that should be granted. Using the comparative method of analysis, the expert concluded that if the property had been granted the same building density coefficient applicable to neighbouring plots, its value would have been CYP 29,224. However, the actual market value of the plot was CYP 4,895 due to the lower coefficient. Consequently, the property's value had diminished by CYP 24,329. 18.  The defendant authorities contested the applicant's argument that the value of the plot had been diminished and the manner in which the applicant's expert had carried out his assessment. 19.  On 13 December 2002 the District Court of Larnaca delivered its judgment. The court pointed out that the requested planning permit had been refused because the proposed construction would cover 17 per cent of the relevant plot. This exceeded the building density coefficient applicable for development purposes. The applicant had not proved that it was this refusal that caused diminution in the property's value. She had not put forward any evidence establishing that the planning authorities had acted outside the scope of the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or applied this scheme disproportionately so as to cause her damage by refusing her application. Furthermore, the applicant had not challenged the Town Planning Scheme. The court considered that any reduction in the property's value had been due to its inclusion in 1981 in Zone Z4. However, it was an established fact that the applicant had not challenged this. Moreover, the property was subsequently included in a zone with a higher coefficient allowing for better chances of development from what was previously envisaged. Therefore, the value of the property had not been reduced due to the change in the applicable zones. 20.  In addition, the court considered that applicant's expert's valuation was not safe. In this connection it noted that it did not provide an estimate of the property's value before its inclusion in the planning zone where it was at the relevant time or determined the value of the property on the market at the relevant time and that comparisons were made with plots in different zones with higher building density coefficients. 21.  Finally, the court observed that the defendants had not pursued their claim that the property had been affected by expropriation; during the hearing it had been admitted that no part of the property had been registered in the Government's name due to expropriation. 22.  On 20 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal (no. 11571) with the Supreme Court challenging the findings of the first instance court. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that the failure of the authorities to award her compensation was contrary to Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 23.  The appeal was heard on 25 June 2004. 24.  On 20 December 2004 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment upholding the findings of the District Court of Larnaca. The court found that it had not been established that a possible reduction was the consequence of the rejection of the applicant's application for a planning permit. If any reduction had occurred to the property's value this would have been due to its prior inclusion in Zone Z4 in 1981 and thus, before the application of the Town Planning Scheme of 1990 on which the District Planning Office had based its decision to dismiss the application. However, the applicant had never contested the inclusion of the property in the above zone on the basis of Article 23 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to property. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had not contested the lawfulness of the decision to establish zones before it nor before the first instance court. It also observed that it was an established fact that the neighbouring properties which were located opposite the applicant's property towards the beach, belonged to a different planning zone, with much higher building density coefficients ranging from 20 to 30 per cent. Finally, the court considered that it was unnecessary to examine the ground of appeal concerning the calculations of the applicant's expert, in view of its findings that there had not been a reduction in the value of the property.