4.  The applicant is a German national and lives in Buchholz. 5.  On 21 September 1995 the applicant was granted divorce and concluded an interim settlement (Zwischenvergleich) with her former husband regarding her maintenance claims in the amount of 1.600 German marks (approximately 818 Euros (EUR)) subject to future variations from the date of the divorce. 6.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant instituted claims in sequence before the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court in order to first obtain information on her former husband’s income and assets, and subsequently request the variation of her maintenance claims in accordance with the provided information. The claim was received by the court on 21 August 2001 and registered under file number “732 F 8/01”. 7.  The scheduled hearings of 11 and 18 December 2001 were postponed at the request of the applicant’s former husband (the defendant). 8.  On 5 February 2002 an oral hearing was set for 27 March 2002. At the hearing the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court ordered an expert opinion regarding the applicant’s invalidity. 9.  From 8 May to 24 June 2002 the applicant was hospitalised due to her depressive disorder and the fact that she had suicidal tendencies at that time. On 4 June 2002 the clinic certified that the applicant should not take any active part in the court proceedings during her clinical treatment because it would put such a strain on her that her treatment would be jeopardised. 10.  On 8 July 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s allegation of bias of 17 April 2002. 11.  On 2 September 2002 the applicant’s counsel withdrew from representing her. On 25 September 2002 she applied for legal aid. 12.  On 12 September 2002 the first expert, who was appointed by the court on 3 September 2002, declined the request due to other commitments. The subsequently appointed expert was rejected by the defendant on 10 October 2002 as he had treated the applicant previously. 13.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant was granted legal aid for the pending proceedings on condition that she made payments by instalments. The court did not assign an attorney to the applicant. 14.  On 21 November 2002 the power of attorney of the applicant’s new counsel was submitted to the court. Subsequently, he was granted access to the files. 15.  On 16 January 2003 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court revoked the legal-aid order as a result of the applicant’s bank balance of EUR 57.706,55. On 28 February 2003 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal quashed the revocation of the legal-aid order as it found that the applicant had revealed her bank balance in her initial motion and that with regard to the applicant’s justified trust in the order its revocation was disproportionate. 16.  On 2 May 2003 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court rejected the applicant’s new allegation of bias of 7 April 2003. Her appeal was dismissed by the Hanseatic Court of Appeal on 26 May 2003. 17.  On 3 June 2003 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court appointed a new expert to determine the applicant’s invalidity. The applicant requested the extension of the evidence order to include information in the report as to her invalidity at the time of the divorce. On 27 August 2003 the evidence order was extended accordingly. The expert opinion was delivered on 19 December 2003, which established that the applicant had been continuously unfit to work since the divorce due to her mental illness. 18.  On 28 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the modalities of the legal-aid order. In particular, she contested that the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court failed to appoint an attorney for her and that she was unable to pay instalments. 19.  On 19 January 2004 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court assigned the applicant an attorney, the counsel who was representing her at the time. 20.  On 1 April 2004 the defendant suggested that the applicant’s capacity to litigate be examined. On 25 May 2004 the expert answered the court’s corresponding question to the effect that there was no doubt about her capacity to litigate throughout the proceedings. 21.  On 15 August 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court about the length of proceedings before the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court. 22.  The Government submitted that on 18 August 2004 a hearing took place before the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court which was postponed until 20 October 2004 due to the court’s omission to summon the applicant’s counsel. It appears from the files that the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court set a joint hearing for two sets of proceedings which were pending before it between the applicant and her former husband. The second set of proceedings was initiated by the applicant’s former husband. 23.  On 24 August 2004 the Registry of the Federal Constitutional Court asked the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court for information on the proceedings. The Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court subsequently replied that the date for a further oral hearing was set for 20 October 2004. The Registry of the Federal Constitutional Court informed the applicant on 13 September 2004 about the reply by the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court and suggested that the examination of her constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings would not be pursued. 24.  On 23 November 2004 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim to obtain information as to her former husband’s income and assets in a partial judgment. It found that the applicant already had sufficient information and failed to show that her husband’s financial situation had changed. Furthermore, it invited the applicant to quantify her maintenance claims in order to pursue her claim to vary the interim settlement in this regard. 25.  The applicant wrote to the Federal Constitutional Court on 24 November 2004 again complaining about the length of proceedings before the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court. On 15 December 2004 the Registry of the Federal Constitutional Court replied to the applicant that her constitutional complaint would be inadmissible in view of the judgment of 23 November 2004. Moreover, the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies against the judgment of the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court of 23 November 2004. 26.  On 31 January 2005 the partial judgment of 23 November 2004 was served on the applicant’s counsel. 27.  On 1 April 2005 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s motion for legal aid for appellate proceedings. 28.  On 10 June 2005 the proceedings were terminated by a settlement between the applicant and her former husband before the Hanseatic Court of Appeal in the course of the other set of proceedings regarding post-marital proprietary claims. The applicant was awarded maintenance in the amount of EUR 782 and medical insurance payments in the amount of EUR 159.39. The formulation of the settlement was modified twice in 2006. These modifications did, however, not concern the regulation of the applicant’s maintenance claims. 29.  On 23 February 2006 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal modified the legal-aid order of 17 October 2002 upon the applicant’s appeal of 28 December 2003 so that her obligation to pay by instalments was cancelled.