8.  The applicant, is a Polish national was born in 1947 and lives in Stalowa Wola, Poland. On 10 June 1991 the applicant and her husband obtained a divorce decree. 9.  On 21 December 1993 the applicant filed an application with the Stalowa Wola District Court for the division of the marital property. She also asked the court to secure her claim. 10.  On 10 January 1994 the applicant asked the court to exempt her from court fees. On 28 February 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court exempted the applicant from the court fees and issued an interim order preventing her ex-husband from disposing of their marital property. On 29 June 1994, upon the defendant's appeal, the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court amended the interim order. 11.  On 6 September 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court decided to join the present proceedings with the action concerning the annulment of contracts (see B below). During a hearing held on 14 October 1994 the District Court reversed its previous decision and decided to deal with the proceedings separately. 12.  On 12 April 1995 the court rejected the applicant's appeal against the order of 6 September 1994 as it had been lodged outside the prescribed time‑limit. On 26 July 1995, on the applicant's request, the District Court granted her leave to file an appeal out of time. On 5 October 1995 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed that appeal. 13.  On 11 March 1996 the Stalowa Wola District Court stayed the proceedings. It considered that their result depended on the outcome of the proceedings relating to the annulment of contracts (see B below). On 23 April 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for further examination. 14.  The District Court held hearings on 1 August and 23 August 1996. On 15 January 1997 the District Court ordered that expert evidence from a company “TC” be obtained. 15.  Subsequently, the applicant on three occasions lodged unsuccessful applications for her claim to be secured. 16.  On 3 April and 8 April 1997 the trial court held hearings. 17.  On 23 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Stalowa District Court. The Regional Court dismissed her challenge on 22 July 1997. 18.  On 6 May, 18 August and 8 October 1997 the trial court repeatedly invited the expert “TC” company to submit their report. The court held further hearings on 18 June and 23 October 1998. 19.  On 6 November 1998 the District Court delivered a preliminary ruling and gave an itemised breakdown of the marital property. This decision was upheld by the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court on 4 March 1999. The applicant's further cassation appeal was rejected on 16 October 1999 as it had been lodged outside the prescribed time limit. 20.  The trial court held a hearing on 10 December 1998. 21.  On 25 April 2001 the applicant asked the trial court to give a partial judgment in the case. On 10 May 2001 the court dismissed her request. 22.  On 11 May 2001 the trial court again requested the “TC” company to prepare an opinion. 23.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Stalowa Wola District Court. 24.  On 15 November 1993 the applicant requested the Stalowa Wola District Court to declare a contract concluded by her ex-husband null and void. 25.  The court held a hearing on 23 February 1993. 26.  At the hearing held on 16 March 1994 the court stayed the proceedings. It considered that the determination of the claim depended on the outcome of the proceedings concerning the division of the marital property. On 19 August 1994, upon the applicant's appeal, the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed this decision. 27.  On 6 September 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court decided to join these two cases. However, on 14 October 1994 it reversed its previous decision and decided to deal with them separately. 28.  Two years later, on 23 August 1996, the District Court fixed a hearing for 26 September 1996. This hearing was cancelled as the applicant had challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 27 September 1996 the District Court rejected the applicant's challenge. This decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 14 November 1996. 29.  On 28 August 1996 the applicant modified her claim. On 12 December 1996 the District Court dismissed the modified claim as the applicant had not specified its value. On 7 February 1997 the court dismissed her appeal. 30.  On 7 March 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for an interim court fee and her further request for an interim order. The applicant appealed. On 28 January 1998 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 March 1997. 31.  The next hearing was held on 4 November 1997. 32.  On 25 February 1998 the District Court referred the case to the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court on grounds of the increased value of the claim. On 22 September 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 2 October 1998 it ordered that part of the applicant's claims be dealt with by the District Court. On 18 December 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 33.  On 5 March 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to specify the names of all participants in the proceedings and adjourned the hearing. 34.  On 7 April 1999 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claims. On 24 May 1999 the Regional Court rejected her appeal against this decision as she had failed to comply with certain formal requirements. The Rzeszów Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 25 June 1999. 35.  The applicant subsequently lodged several unsuccessful requests for the proceedings to be reopened.