4.  The applicant is a member of the Roma ethnic minority, who was born in 1943 and lives in Budapest. 5.  On 3 October 1996 the applicant brought an action requesting that a flat which she had purchased from a third person, Mrs I.S., be vacated. 6.  In the meantime, Mrs I.S. brought an action before the same court challenging the validity of the contract of sale. 7.  On 2 April 1997 the Pest Central District Court suspended the proceedings relating to the applicant's action pending the outcome of the dispute over the validity of the contract of sale. 8.  In the proceedings instituted by Mrs I.S., the Pest Central District Court held six hearings until 12 January 1999, when it dismissed the plaintiff's action. On 28 October 1999 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision and remitted the case to first instance. Following five hearings, on 6 February 2001 the District Court dismissed Mrs I.S.'s action. This judgment was finally confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 13 September 2001. 9.  On the applicant's request, on 2 May 2002 the District Court held a hearing in the case concerning the evacuation of the flat in question. With an order, the court again suspended the proceedings until the applicant's ownership had been registered by the Budapest Land Registry. 10.  The applicant appealed against this order on 15 May 2002, submitting that the original copy of the contract of sale could not be located at the Land Registry with the result that the applicant's ownership of the flat could not be registered. 11.  On 29 May 2002 the Budapest Land Registry informed the District Court that the original copy of the contract had been sent to the District Court in the context of the case terminated on 13 September 2001. It requested the court to return the contract to it. 12.  On 9 July 2002 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal of 15 May 2002, holding that the registration of her ownership had to be dealt with as a preliminary question. 13.  On 4 September 2002 the Land Registry informed the applicant that the District Court had not replied to its request to date. 14.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant also requested the District Court to return the contract in question to the Land Registry. 15.  In February 2004 the applicant was informed that the contract in question had been found at the court. The proceedings are apparently either still suspended or pending.