4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kherson. 5.  In April 1997 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against Mr V.S., accusing him of fraud and forgery. She contended that in 1995 she had prepared a notarially recorded power of attorney in his name with an intention to authorize him to sell her apartment. However, she had not handed the original document to him and left for Russia, where she had worked until 1997. Having returned to Kherson, she had learned that Mr V.S. had sold her apartment to a certain Mr D.D., who had subsequently exchanged it for Mrs L.Ch.'s house. 6.  Subsequently, an expert established that the particular copy of the power of attorney, which had been used by Mr V.S. for concluding the sale agreement, contained the applicant's forged signature. 7.  On 30 April 1997 the criminal proceedings were suspended, as Mr V.S.'s whereabouts were unknown and he was placed on the national “wanted” list. 8.  In April 1997 the applicant also instituted civil proceedings against Mrs L.Ch., Mr D.D., and Mr V.S., claiming restitution of the apartment. 9.  On 30 June 1997 the Suvorovsky District Court of Kherson (Суворовський районний суд м. Херсона) allowed the applicant's claim. This judgment became final. 10.  On 28 November 1997 the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court (“the Regional Court”; Херсонський обласний суд)[1] quashed the judgment of 30 June 1997 following a supervisory protest of the Deputy Regional Prosecutor and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 11.  On 30 August 2000 Mr D.D. and Mrs L.Ch. lodged a counterclaim, maintaining that Mr V.S. had been duly authorized to sell the apartment. 12.  On 5 September 2000 the Suvorovsky Court dismissed the applicant's claim and allowed the counterclaim. It recalled that the applicant had not officially revoked the authorization to sell her apartment, which had remained on the notary register, and so the forgery of a particular copy of the power of attorney had not made the sales agreement null and void. This judgment became final. 13.  On 18 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed this judgment following a supervisory protest introduced by the Deputy Regional Prosecutor and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 14.  On 15 November 2002 the Suvorovsky Court dismissed the applicant's claim and allowed the counterclaim, having found that it could not invalidate the sales agreement solely on the basis of an expert opinion that a copy of the power of attorney had been forged. The applicant appealed pursuant a newly introduced appeal procedure. 15.  On 5 March 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 17 March 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation. 16.  On 19 November 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation. 17.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some fifty hearings. Some twenty of them were adjourned on account of the defendants' absences. Some seven adjournments were attributable to the applicant's absences or her requests for adjournments. Four hearings were adjourned on account of both parties' absence.