4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Poltava. 5.  On 2 June 2000 she lodged a claim with the Poltava Court against the V. company in a corporate dispute between them. 6.  On 30 January 2001 the court requested the applicant to rectify her claim in accordance with the procedural formalities by 10 February 2001. 7.  On 29 May 2006 the same court rejected the applicant’s claim as lodged out of the period of limitation. 8.  On 5 October 2006 and 8 August 2007, respectively, the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court upheld the above judgment. 9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings nine hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s requests or due to her or both parties’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed that three hearings had been adjourned at her request or due to her failure to appear. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings to approximately eight and a half months. Some twenty one hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the respondent, its requests for the adjournments, the need to collect additional documents, sickness of a judge, transfer of the case to another judge, moving of the court to another premise or for unspecified reasons.