4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zlatar. 5.  In July 1991 the applicant had a road traffic accident. Since the insurance company C.O. (“the company”) refused to compensate the resultant damage, on 8 July 1992 she instituted civil proceedings against it in the Zlatar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zlataru). 6.  On 15 March 1993 the Municipal Court ruled in the applicant's favour ordering the company to pay her the amount of 222,501 Croatian dinars (HRD) together with the statutory default interest accruable from 19 August 1991. The applicant collected the judgment debt on 16 July 1993. 7.  However, in the meantime, on 2 July 1993 the Municipal Court issued a decision rectifying a clerical error in its judgment of 15 March 1993. Instead of ordering the company to pay the statutory default interest accruable from 19 August 1991 on the entire amount of damages awarded, (HRD 222,501), in the rectified judgment the court ordered the company to do so only on the part of that amount, namely HRD 22,501, which was the amount awarded in respect of pecuniary damage. The company was ordered to pay the accrued interest on the remaining amount of HRD 200,000 only with effect from 15 March 1993. 8.  The decision on rectification was served on the applicant's representative on 26 July 1993. 9.  On 10 September 1993 judge M.M., who was at the time the President of the Zlatar Municipal Court, filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney's Office considering that she had committed a criminal offence. M.M. stated in his complaint that at the beginning of July 1993 a certain Z.F.C., a lawyer employed with the insurance company C.O., had come to his office explaining the clerical error in the Municipal Court's judgment of 15 March 1993 and asking him to influence the applicant – who was working at the time as an advocate – with a view to returning the unlawfully obtained amount. After explaining the error and mentioning that it had been rectified by the Municipal Court's decision of 2 July 1993, judge M.M. stated:
“... despite the rectification of the judgment, the advocate Marija Parlov-Tkalčić, to date does not want to return the unlawfully appropriated money to [the company] C.O., Zabok, for which reason the civil proceedings no. P-330/93 were instituted [against her].
Since we consider that the act of the advocate Marija Parlov-Tkalčić also contains elements of criminal liability, we are reporting it to you with a view to investigating it and, possibly, instituting criminal proceedings against her ...” 10.  On 15 September 1993 the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney requested transfer of jurisdiction because he was a friend of the applicant. On 22 September 1993 the case was transferred to the Krapina Municipal State Attorney who, on 24 January 1994 indicted the applicant before the Zlatar Municipal Court charging her with a criminal offence of misappropriation (utaja). 11.  However, on 3 February 1994 the judge assigned to hear the case requested that the case be transferred to another court as its president had actually filed a criminal complaint against the applicant. On 8 March 1994 the Supreme Court (decision no. Kr-103/1994-3) granted the request and decided to transfer the case to the Krapina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Krapini). The decision in its relevant part read as follows:
The ... judge [assigned to hear the case] of the Zlatar Municipal Court made a request that the criminal proceedings ... against Marija Parlov-Tkalčić ... be conducted before the Krapina Municipal Court.
The request is substantiated by the fact that the accused Marija Parlov-Tkalčić is an advocate with her office in Zlatar and that the criminal complaint against her was filed by the president of the Zlatar Municipal Court, which may objectively cast doubt on the impartial administration of justice if the proceedings are to be conducted before the Zlatar Municipal Court.
The request is well-founded.
The circumstances highlighted in the request of the ... judge [assigned to hear the case] constitute in the present instance important reasons within the meaning of section 31(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for transferring territorial jurisdiction from the Zlatar Municipal Court to the Krapina Municipal Court ... 12.  On 28 November 1997 the Krapina Municipal Court dismissed the charges against the applicant given that the prosecution for the offence she had been charged with had in the meantime become time-barred (apsolutna zastara). 13.  Meanwhile, on 26 August 1993 the insurance company C.O. brought a civil action for unjust enrichment against the applicant in the Zlatar Municipal Court seeking to recover the overpaid interest. The statement of claim was served on the applicant on 7 September 1993. 14.  On 25 April 1997 the applicant made a counter-claim. 15.  The court held hearings on 29 April and 2 December 1999 and 29 March and 5 July 2000. 16.  At the last-mentioned hearing the Zlatar Municipal Court gave judgment against the applicant, ordering her to pay the plaintiff 12,525 Croatian kunas (HRK) together with the statutory default interest accruable from 26 July 1993, as well as HRK 4,381.25 in costs. It also declared her counter-claim inadmissible in one part while dismissing it in the remaining part. 17.  On 11 January 2001 the applicant appealed to the Zlatar County Court (Županijski sud u Zlataru) asking at the same time for transfer of jurisdiction (svrsishodna delegacija nadležnosti) from both the Zlatar Municipal Court and the Zlatar County Court. She argued, inter alia, that the Zlatar County Court could not be expected to be impartial in the examination of her appeal given that judge M.M. – who had in the meantime become the president of that court – had previously filed a criminal complaint against her. 18.  The Government submitted that judge M.M. had been appointed the president of the Zlatar County Court on 14 June 1996 but that this court had become operational only on 15 March 1999. 19.  On 31 May 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant's request for transfer of jurisdiction. It held that the circumstances relied on by the applicant did not cast doubt on the professional and objective examination of her appeal by the Zlatar County Court. Thus, there was no important reason justifying the requested transfer. 20.  On 16 March 2005 the Zlatar County Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 April 2005. 21.  On 20 May 2005 the applicant lodged a regular constitutional complaint under section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act against the second-instance judgment. Relying on Article 29 of the Constitution, she claimed, inter alia, that her constitutional right to an impartial court had been violated because the impugned judgment had been delivered by the court whose president had previously filed a criminal complaint against her relying on the same facts as those relied on by the first- and second-instance courts when giving their decisions. On 3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her constitutional complaint. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 December 2005. 22.  Meanwhile, on 27 January 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings for unjust enrichment. The Constitutional Court examined the length of the proceedings in the period during which they were pending before the ordinary courts thus excluding the period of some seven months while the case was pending before the Constitutional Court itself (see paragraph 21 above). On 15 February 2006 it found a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded her HRK 5,000 in compensation. 23.  According to information provided by the Government in reply to a request made by the Court, the Zlatar County Court has a civil and a criminal division. The civil division has six judges sitting in two different panels. The president of the court sits on one of the panels. The criminal division has three judges, and judges of the civil division sit with them when necessary. The cases are assigned to judges according to Rule 33 of the Court Rules (see paragraph 40 below). Thus, before being allocated to judges, cases are listed in chronological order according to the time when they were received at the court. After that, cases are allocated to judges in the alphabetical order of the panel presidents' last names. However, account is being taken of whether some of the judges participated in the first-instance proceedings in a particular case. If they did, the case is not assigned to them.