4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Vienna.
Proceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property and savings (the first round) 5.  On 4 December 1987 the applicant’s former husband A., and on 15 December 1987 the applicant herself, requested the division of the matrimonial property and savings (Aufteilung des ehelichen Gebrauchsvermögens und der ehelichen Ersparnisse) following their divorce. 6.  On 13 March 1989 the Döbling District Court (Bezirksgericht), after having held seven hearings, divided the matrimonial property. It decided, inter alia, to transfer A.’s title concerning the land and the house to the applicant, who was ordered to pay to A. the sum of 2,876,000 Austrian Schilling (ATS) by way of compensation. The applicant and A. appealed against this decision. 7.  On 31 August 1989 the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) allowed the appeals due to procedural deficiencies and remitted the case to the District Court. Both parties filed an appeal on points of law (Revisionsrekurs) against this decision. 8.  On 29 January 1991 the Supreme Court dismissed these appeals.
The second round of the proceedings 9.  Subsequently, due to the District Court’s rule concerning the distribution of cases (Geschäftsverteilung), another judge was assigned who held three more hearings, heard additional witnesses in order to assess the applicant’s contribution to the matrimonial property and obtained an expert opinion concerning the value of the property at issue. 10.  On 24 July 1991 the District Court divided the matrimonial property. It decided, inter alia, to transfer the applicant’s title concerning the land and the house to A., who was ordered to pay the applicant the sum of ATS 3,358,200 by way of compensation. Both parties appealed. 11.  On 18 March 1992 the Regional Civil Court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the District Court had failed to consider the applicant’s observations on the expert opinion.
The third round of the proceedings 12.  On 23 October 1992 the District Court, after having held two hearings on 19 May and 22 July 1992, took a partial decision and decided, inter alia, to transfer the applicant’s title concerning the land and the house to A., who was ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of ATS 4,000,000 by way of compensation. As regards the applicant’s additional claim for compensation for her contribution to A.’s business, it decided to suspend the proceedings as tax assessment proceedings against A. were pending. The outcome of the tax assessment had to be taken into account in the instant proceedings. The applicant and A. again appealed. 13.  On 10 March 1993 the Regional Civil Court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the District Court had failed to calculate properly the value of the house.
The fourth round of the proceedings 14.  Subsequently, the case was assigned to another judge due to the court’s rule concerning the distribution of cases. On 16 July, 13 September, 14 October, 3 and 17 November 1993, A. requested extensions of time-limits for the submission of documents or comments, respectively. 15.  On 27 September 1993 and 19 January 1994 the District Court held another two hearings. 16.  On 21 July 1994 the applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Austrian Court Act (Fristsetzungsantrag). In particular she requested that a time limit be set for the District Court to reach its decision. 17.  On 12 August 1994 the District Court took a partial decision and decided, inter alia, to transfer the applicant’s title concerning the land and the house to A., who was ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of ATS 4,300,000 by way of compensation. As regards the applicant’s additional claim, the court again decided to suspend the proceedings until the termination of the tax assessment proceedings. Both parties appealed. 18.  On 13 February 1995 the applicant filed a further request for an acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Court Act. In particular, she requested that a time limit be set for the Regional Court to determine her appeal against the decision of 12 August 1994. 19.  On 22 February 1995 the Regional Civil Court partly confirmed the decision of 12 August 1994. It allowed the applicant’s appeal as regards the interest to be paid on the award of compensation, but dismissed the remainder as being otherwise unfounded or out of time. A request by A. for his reinstatement in the proceedings was unsuccessful. 20.  On 20 September 1995 the Supreme Court rejected A.’s appeal on points of law. Thereby, the proceedings were terminated concerning the transfer of the land and the house and the related compensation payment. As regards possible further compensation to the applicant for her contribution to A.’s business, the proceedings remained pending until the termination of the tax assessment.
The applicant’s claim for further compensation 21.  On 11 October 1995 the applicant asked the court to obtain information on the current state of the tax assessment proceedings. This the court did and the applicant commented on it. 22.  On 3 June 1996 the applicant asked the court to take a final decision. 23.  On 4 July 1996 the District Court replied that the tax assessment proceedings were still pending. 24.  On 30 July 1996 the applicant filed a request to continue the suspended proceedings. 25.  On 28 November 1996 the District Court dismissed the request as the tax assessment proceedings were still pending. 26.  On 13 October 1997 the District Court held a hearing and decided to continue the suspension of the proceedings. 27.  On 21 April 1998 the District Court dismissed a further request by the applicant to continue the proceedings. 28.  In August 1998 the Vienna Tax Office (Finanzamt) determined A.’s tax liability. This decision became final. 29.  On 1 September 1998 the applicant requested the resumption of the suspended proceedings and submitted that, meanwhile, the tax assessment proceedings against A. had been terminated. 30.  On 3 November 1998 A. requested the postponement of a hearing until after 7 January 1999, on the ground that his counsel was unable to attend. 31.  On 12 January and 21 October 1999 the District Court held two hearings. 32.  On 15 May 2000 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s additional claims and awarded her ATS 300,000. It found that each party had to bear its own costs. 33.  On 13 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal. She submitted that the court should have awarded her ATS 550,000 and that the costs decision was unreasonable. 34.  On 8 November 2000 the Regional Civil Court partly allowed the applicant’s appeal and awarded her ATS 550,000, but dismissed the complaint against the costs order. Further, it ordered A. to pay the applicant’s legal costs in the appeal proceedings. It found that, when taking a decision about such costs under Section 234 of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (Außerstreitgesetz), it had to take into account, inter alia, the outcome of the proceedings, the financial standing of the parties and their conduct in the proceedings. Given that neither party could be regarded as being predominantly successful in the case, that both parties had about the same income and that neither of them had made any marked contribution to the acceleration of the proceedings, the decision that each party bear its own legal costs appeared equitable. A. appealed on points of law against this decision. 35.  On 2 May 2001 the Regional Civil Court refused leave to appeal on points of law. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 22 May 2001.