4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Sevastopol. 5.  The circumstances of the case concern a dispute between the applicant and a State company over the execution of a contract pursuant to which the latter undertook, in June 1990, to install a tombstone at the applicant’s son’s grave. 6.  On 21 August 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol against the company for the alleged failure to comply with the contract. 7.  On 28 December 2000 the court adopted a judgment, partly allowing the applicant’s claim. It ordered the company to install the tombstone or to reimburse the money the applicant had paid for it. The court noted that although the applicant had missed the statutory time-limit for lodging her claim, it was justified, in the applicant’s particular situation, to renew the time-limit. 8.  On 6 February 2001 the Sevastopol City Court quashed that judgment, finding that the first instance court had erred in the assessment of facts and the application of law, and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 9.  On 19 June 2001 the Leninsky Court rejected the applicant’s claim as time-barred. It dismissed the applicant’s request for renewal of the statutory time-limit as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 29 January 2002 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 19 June 2001. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at that time, the applicant had three months to lodge an appeal in cassation. 11.  On 4 April 2002 an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure became effective providing for one-month, instead of three-month, time-limit for lodging appeals in cassation. 12.  The applicant appealed in cassation on 25 April 2002. The Leninsky Court refused to refer the cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that it had been lodged more than one month after the delivery of the decision of 29 January 2002. 13.  The applicant challenged the refusal, arguing that in her case the previous three-month time-limit had been applicable. 14.  Subsequently, for about a year the courts at two levels of jurisdiction (first and appeal) reconsidered the admissibility of the applicant’s cassation appeal. In particular, on 3 September 2002 and 23 January 2003 the applicant appealed against the first instance court’s decisions of 7 August 2002 and 14 January 2003 respectively which concerned the admissibility of her cassation appeal. 15.  Eventually, on 10 April 2003 the cassation appeal was referred to the Supreme Court. 16.  On 25 January 2006 the Supreme Court, having examined the appeal in camera, rejected it as unsubstantiated. It found no ground to annul the decisions on the merits of the applicant’s case. 17.  A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 18 April 2006. The applicant received it on 26 April 2006. 18.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceeding, the applicant amended her claim for non-pecuniary damages and submitted additional petitions. Also, out of thirty-two scheduled hearings, five were adjourned due to the applicant’s or her representative’s failure to appear, one hearing was not held because of the respondent’s failure to appear, one hearing was adjourned due to the judge’s absence for health reasons. On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the applicant’s request, the term for lodging an appeal which resulted in delays of about three months. 19.  According to the applicant, she attended all the hearings.