4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the city of Simferopol, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”), Ukraine. She is a single mother and has a son who at the time of the accident was eight years old. 5.  On 24 July 1995 the applicant was knocked down by a trolley bus. She suffered an open craniocerebral injury and a brain contusion. As a result of these injuries the applicant received a status of a disabled person with the lowest degree of disability (третя група інвалідності). 6.  In January 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralnyy District Court against the Simferopol Trolley-Bus Company, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to her health caused by the accident. In particular, as a part of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed compensation for medicaments, additional nutrition, sanatorium treatment and transport expenses, and compensation for the loss of earnings. 7.  On 1 August 1997 the Tsentralnyy District Court awarded the applicant 4,604.17[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in pecuniary damages and UAH 10,000[2] in non-pecuniary damages. 8.  On 17 September 1997 the Supreme Court of the ARC (“the SARC”) upheld this judgment. 9.  On 19 December 1997 the SARC, upon the protest of its Head (initiated by the applicant), quashed the above judgments under the extraordinary review procedure in the part concerning compensation for medicaments, additional nutrition, sanatorium treatment and transport expenses and in the part concerning compensation for the loss of earnings and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 10.  On 21 March 1998 the hearing was postponed because the defendant failed to appear. 11.  On 20 April 1998 the court hearing took place. 12.  On 23 June 1998, upon the applicant's request, the case was transferred to the Simferopolskyy District Court. 13.  On 26 August 1998 the case was transferred to another judge. 14.  On 4 November 1998 the court ordered a bookkeeping expertise. The expertise was performed by 30 November 1998. 15.  On 22 December 1998 the hearing was postponed as the parties failed to appear. 16.  On 20 January 1999 the court hearing took place. 17.  On 9 February 1999 the court found in part for the applicant. The applicant was awarded UAH 4,259.68[3] in compensation for additional nutrition and UAH 220.62[4] in compensation for transport expenses. The remainder of the applicant's claims was rejected. 18.  On 29 March 1999 the SARC quashed this judgment in part concerning compensation for the loss of earnings. The court failed to state in the operational part that the quashed part of the case should be remitted for fresh consideration, however, in the text of the judgment it expressly held that during the new examination the first instance court should take into consideration the findings of the SARC. 19.  On 7 July 2000 the SARC, upon the protest of its Head (initiated by the applicant) quashed the above judgments in the part concerning compensation for additional nutrition and sanatorium treatment under the extraordinary procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 20.  On 16 November 2000 the court ordered a bookkeeping expertise. The expertise was completed by 31 June 2001. 21.  On 21 May 2001 the judge withdrew from the case. 22.  On 6 November 2001 and 18 December 2002 two hearings took place. 23.  On 27 March 2002 the hearing was adjourned because the parties failed to appear. From the materials submitted by the parties it is unclear whether the applicant was duly informed about this hearing. 24.  On 22 April 2002 the Simferopolskiy District Court left the applicant's case without consideration because the applicant had twice failed to appear in court without plausible reason. 25.  The applicant appealed against this decision, asking inter alia that her case be considered on the merits by the higher court because the examination by the lower courts had already been too lengthy. 26.  On 8 July 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (the former SARC, hereafter the CAARC) quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. The applicant appealed against this decision in cassation as the court failed to consider her request to transfer her case to the higher court. 27.  On 31 October 2002 the applicant was provided with a time-limit to submit her cassation appeal in compliance with procedural requirements. 28.  On 16 December 2002 the Simferopolskiy District Court returned the applicant's appeal in cassation against this decision for non-compliance with the procedural formalities prescribed by law. 29.  On 24 June 2003 the CAARC upheld this decision. 30.  On 1 July 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation. 31.  On 19 July 2005 the Simferopolskyy District Court postponed the hearing as the parties failed to appear. 32.  On 29 July 2005 the Court left the applicant's case without consideration because the applicant had twice failed to appear in court without plausible reason. 33.  On 15 December 2005 the CAARC quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. In particular, the court stated that there were no indications in the case file that the applicant had been duly informed about the hearings in her case.