6.  The applicant lives in Sisak. 7.  On 6 October 1989 the applicant concluded a life-long assistance contract (ugovor o doživotnom uzdržavanju; “the contract”) with Mrs Z. C. The contract stipulated that the applicant was to inherit Z.C.'s flat, movables and foreign currency savings, provided that she took care of her until her death. 8.  On 27 June 1996, after the death of Z.C., her husband and relatives (“the plaintiffs”), including her nephew Mr B.H., instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) seeking annulment of the contract. They claimed that the applicant had not fulfilled her obligations arising out of the contract and that it should therefore be declared void. 9.  During the first-instance proceedings, the applicant requested withdrawal of all judges of the Sisak Municipal Court and of the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) claiming that the plaintiffs were close relatives of one of the Sisak County Court's judges, Mrs L.H. In particular, B.H. was the husband of L.H., who was at that time the acting president of the Sisak County Court. The applicant claimed that the president of a court personally distributed files to the judges within the court and that L.H. inevitably had an influence on the appointment of the judge in her case. Moreover, she argued that the Sisak County Court was a small court, where all judges knew each other and that this would certainly undermine the impartiality of the judge assigned to hear the case. 10.  The applicant therefore requested her case to be transferred to another court outside the Sisak County Court's territorial jurisdiction. 11.  On 6 March 1997 the Sisak Municipal Court forwarded the applicant's request to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), interpreting it as a request for transfer of jurisdiction (svrsishodna delegacija nadležnosti) pursuant to section 68 of the Civil Procedure Act. 12.  On 17 April 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request in respect of the Sisak Municipal Court as ill-founded, finding no indication that it might be biased. It further found that it was premature to decide on the transfer of jurisdiction of the Sisak County Court, because at that time the proceedings were only pending before the first-instance court. 13.  On 1 July 1999 the Sisak Municipal Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and declared the contract void. 14.  On 8 November 2001 judge L.H. ceased to perform the duties of the acting president of the Sisak County Court. She remained the president of the civil division of that court, a position which she had held since 1 May 1998. Under the legislation in force at the material time, the president of a court having several divisions has the administrative duty to assign cases to judges within the division. 15.  The first-instance judgment appears to have been served on the applicant only in late 2001. On 23 October 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Sisak County Court. In her appeal, the applicant requested that the case be reassigned to another County Court for decision. 16.  On 25 April 2002 the Sisak County Court ruled on the merits of her case, dismissing the applicant's appeal and upholding the first-instance judgment. The court had not forwarded the applicant's renewed request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Instead, it concluded that such request was ill-founded, as the Supreme Court had already reached a decision on the same issue at an earlier stage in the proceedings, namely on 17 April 1997. Judge L.H. was not a member of the panel of three judges deciding on the appeal. 17.  On 24 June 2002, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) claiming inter alia that, by failing to decide on her request for the transfer of jurisdiction, the Sisak County Court violated her right to a fair hearing. 18.  On 24 October 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint, finding that the courts had correctly applied relevant substantive and procedural law in the applicant's case.