7.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Zagreb. 8.  The applicant lived with her parents in a flat in Zagreb. Her father had a protected tenancy of the flat. The flat was owned by the Ministry of Defence. In 1991 the parents left Croatia and the applicant stayed in the flat with her husband and children. 9.  On 25 September 1995 S.Ž. broke into and occupied the flat. 10.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant filed an action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against S.Ž. for disturbance of her possession of the flat. 11.  On 11 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court allowed the applicant's claim and ordered S.Ž. to vacate the flat finding that he was living there without any legal ground. 12.  Upon S.Ž.'s appeal the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first instance decision on 26 January 1999. 13.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant requested the Zagreb Municipal Court to issue an eviction order. 14.  On 18 May 1999 the court requested the applicant to submit the decision on which she based her request together with a stamped endorsement certifying final adjudication (hereinafter “the endorsement”). 15.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant's counsel informed the court that the presiding judge in the civil proceedings refused to endorse the decision and that he had asked the Zagreb Municipal Court's Enforcement Department to request the civil case-file from the Civil Department of the same court. 16.  On 2 November 1999 the applicant's counsel asked the court to speed up the proceedings. 17.  On 3 February 2000 the court issued the eviction order. 18.  On 16 February 2000 the defendant filed an appeal against the eviction order with a request that the order should not be executed. 19.  On 17 February 2000 the Ministry of Defence (Ministrastvo obrane Republike Hrvatske), as the third party in the proceedings, also appealed against the eviction order. 20.  On 2 March 2000 the court invited the applicant's counsel to reply to the above appeals. 21.  On 13 March 2000 the Ministry of the Homeland War Veterans (Ministarstvo hrvatskih branitelja Domovinskog rata) asked the court to postpone the eviction of the defendant until he had found alternative accommodation. 22.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant's counsel filed his reply to the defendant's appeal. 23.  On 19 May 2000 the court invited the applicant's counsel to reply to the third party's appeal. The court renewed its request on 28 June 2000. 24.  On 29 June 2000 the applicant's counsel submitted a reply. 25.  On 3 July 2000 the court rejected the request to postpone the eviction. 26.  On 4 July 2000 the court instructed the third party to institute separate proceedings to have the eviction order cancelled. 27.  On 18 July 2000 the applicant was granted a protected tenancy on the flat at issue by the Zagreb City Administration, Trnje Office (Gradska uprava Zagreb, Područni ured Trnje). 28.  On 27 September 2000 the Ministry of Defence again asked the court to postpone the eviction because it had instituted proceedings for the cancellation of the eviction order. 29.  On 28 September 2000 the Ministry of the Homeland War Veterans asked the court to postpone the eviction. 30.  On 3 October 2000 S.Ž. asked the court to postpone the eviction alleging that both he and his wife were in bad health. 31.  On 6 October 2000, when the execution officer of the court attempted to carry out the eviction order, S.Ž. asked that the eviction be postponed because of both his and his wife's bad health and as he was to be shortly provided with another flat. The applicant's counsel agreed to the postponement of the eviction until the end of 2000. 32.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant's counsel asked the court to continue the enforcement proceedings. 33.  On 18 January 2001 the court invited the applicant to pay an advance on the costs of the eviction. On 13 February 2001 the applicant's counsel informed the court that she had paid the costs. 34.  On 25 May 2001 the applicant's counsel asked the court to speed up the proceedings. 35.  On 13 November 2001 the Ministry of the Homeland War Veterans asked the court to postpone the eviction. 36.  According to the Government, when the execution officer of the court attempted to carry out the eviction order on 14 November 2001, S.Ž. asked that the eviction be postponed until 1 February 2002 since he was supposed to be given another flat on that date. The applicant's counsel, who was also present, agreed to that request. 37.  According to the applicant the eviction order was not carried out because S.Ž. and a number of war veterans who were in the flat at the time obstructed the eviction. 38.  On 1 February 2002, when the execution officer of the court attempted to carry out the eviction order, S.Ž. again asked that the eviction be postponed until 15 April 2002 since he would be moving into another flat sometime before that date. The applicant's counsel, who was also present, agreed to that request. 39.  On 18 March 2002 S.Ž. submitted to the court a written request for the postponement of the eviction. On 25 March 2002 the court asked the applicant to reply to that request. On 5 April 2002 the applicant's counsel opposed the request. 40.  On 25 April 2002 the execution officer of the court attempted to carry out the eviction order. The Government submit that it was not carried out because neither the applicant nor her counsel were present. The applicant submits that the eviction order was not executed because the assistance of the police had not been ensured and because of the presence in the flat of a number of war veterans who had obstructed the eviction. 41.  On 23 July 2002 the court scheduled the eviction for 17 October 2002. 42.  On 10 September 2002 the applicant asked the court to ensure the availability of at least two execution officers and to block the passage to the flat in order to prevent persons from obstructing the eviction. 43.  The Government submit that the eviction scheduled for 17 October 2002 was not carried out because the applicant and her representative were not present. 44.  The applicant submits that she and her representative were not present because the court did not comply with her request of 10 September 2002. 45.  The eviction scheduled for 25 February 2003 was not carried out. 46.  The eviction was carried out on 21 March 2003.