4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Slovyansk. 5.  In December 1994 she was injured while working at the State-owned company Donetska Zaliznytsia (“the company”, Донецька залізниця) and became partially disabled. Shortly afterwards the company voluntarily accepted full liability for the applicant’s disability. 6.  In December 1995 the applicant lodged a claim against Ch., the head physician of a hospital where she had been treated after having sustained the injury, seeking damages for allegedly inadequate medical treatment. In a judgment of 24 April 1996 the Slovyansk City Court (“the City Court”) rejected her claim. On 6 June 1996 and 28 March 2003, the Donetsk Regional Court (since June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court respectively, upheld this judgment. 7.  On 6 December 1996 the applicant lodged four separate claims with the City Court against the company seeking respectively: compensation for salary arrears, medical expenses and issuance or compensation of cost of sanatorium voucher; annulment of a reprimand; payment of health allowances; and placement to a certain post. On 9 December 1996 the court requested her to rectify shortcomings in her fourth claim. On 17 April 1997 she lodged a fifth claim seeking redeployment to a certain post at the company. 8.  On 5 May 1997 the applicant was dismissed for repeated failure to perform her duties. 9.  On 27 May 1997 she lodged a sixth claim seeking her reemployment and payment of damages. 10.  On 3 June 1997 the City Court returned the fourth claim to the applicant. On 17 June 1997 it left the second claim unexamined, the applicant having failed to appear before it. On an unspecified date in July 1997 the court held the first hearing on the applicant’s claims. There is no indication whether the claims were joined, and if so when. 11.  On 15 October 1997 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 17 June 1997. In a judgment of 11 June 2003, the City Court rejected the applicant’s claims, including the overall claim for UAH 183,183 (EUR 29,309 euros, EUR)[1] in damages. On 3 February and 17 December 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Supreme Court respectively, upheld this judgment. On 11 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for a re-hearing of her case by way of extraordinary review. 12.  According to the Government, between 11 September 1997 and 17 December 2004 the applicant modified her claims on four occasions, filed four procedural requests and three appeals, always complying with the procedural requirements. Of the seventy three hearings scheduled during the same period of time, eleven were adjourned due to the defendant’s or witness’s failure to attend, ten were adjourned at the applicant’s request, seven were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend, three were adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend, three were adjourned at the both parties’ request, two were adjourned at the defendant’s request, and four were adjourned for reasons beyond parties’ control. 13.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant brought an action against the company seeking recovery of her work book (трудова книжка) with rectified records, work-related arrears and non-pecuniary damages. In a judgment of 26 November 2004 the City Court dismissed her action. On 28 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 21 May 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transmitted the applicant’s case to the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which on 20 December 2007, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld the lower court’s decisions. According to the applicant, she learned about this decision on 9 February 2009 and appealed in cassation again. On 14 April 2009 the Supreme Court left her appeal unexamined, the case having been already reviewed. 14.  In 1995 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against G., the company’s employee who allegedly was responsible for her injury in 1994. In 1998 G. was charged with work-safety negligence and amnestied. The applicant unsuccessfully pursued further prosecution of G. 15.  In August-October 1995 the City Court dealt with Ch.’s criminal claim for defamation brought against the applicant. 16.  According to the applicant, on 13 September 1995 B., a manager of the company, pushed her out of his office injuring her. She stated further that on 15 April 1997 an investigator of the Donetsk Railway Prosecutor’s Office, R., beat her up when escorting her in order to carry out investigative actions. During 1995-2003 the applicant succeeded in having criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the investigator and manager; the proceedings were terminated after investigation. 17.  In 1997-2003 the applicant unsuccessfully sought to bring criminal proceedings against Ch. for alleged violation of safety rules. 18.  In 2000-2008 she unsuccessfully sought to bring criminal and disciplinary proceedings against certain managers of the company for alleged abuse of authority. During the above-mentioned periods of time, she unsuccessfully sought to bring disciplinary proceedings against certain employees and managers of the company. 19.  The applicant did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil claimant.