4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Karlovac. 5.  Following her return from Germany in March 1992, the applicant found out that three business premises in her ownership had been blown up by unknown perpetrators. 6.  On 1 March 1995 the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings against the State before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act. 7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject. 8.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force. 9.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. On 19 March 2004 it gave three decisions declaring the applicant's actions inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. On 26 March 2003 the applicant appealed against those decisions to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). 10.  On 23 June and 22 October 2004 and 18 January 2005, respectively, the County Court quashed the impugned decisions and remitted the cases to the Municipal Court. 11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 January and 25 May 2005, respectively, the Municipal Court gave judgments dismissing the applicant's claims in two of those proceedings. On 4 April and 20 June 2006 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the first-instance judgments. The applicant then appealed on points of law (revizija) and the two cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). 12.  As regards the third set of proceedings, on 23 May 2005 the Municipal Court decided to stay them because the applicant's husband, who was a co-plaintiff in that case, had died. 13.  Meanwhile, on 15 October 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above three sets of civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 25 November 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of her constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded her 12,750 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the proceedings complained of in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 10 December 2004.