4.  The applicant company, FPK GROSS, OOO (limited liability company), is a Ukrainian legal entity registered in Kharkiv. 5.  On 14 April 2000 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv against Mr Ch. (a private individual), challenging a title to several cars. In the course of the proceedings Mr Ch. and Mr K. (another private individual) lodged, respectively, a counter-claim and a claim against the applicant company and three third parties joined the proceedings. 6.  On 30 October 2000 the case was transferred to the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv, which on 20 November 2003 delivered a judgment. On 8 June 2004 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed it and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Frunzenskyy District Court of Kharkiv. 7.  On 3 August 2007 the latter court delivered a judgment. On 12 December 2007 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld it. On 15 April 2008 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Kharkiv Commercial Court. On 10 July 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the latter ruling. 8.  On 13 October 2008 the Kharkiv Commercial Court ruled against the applicant company. 9.  According to the Government (no copies of the court decisions were provided by the parties), on 18 December 2009 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. On 6 April and 26 July 2010, respectively, the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court returned unexamined the applicant company’s appeals in cassation against the above decisions for unspecified reasons. 10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s representatives’ or all parties’ failure to appear and two hearings due to the applicant company’s specification of the claim. On one occasion the applicant company requested the extension of the procedural time-limits for lodging its appeal and the courts allowed its request. The above delays on the applicant company’s part protracted the proceedings by eight months approximately. Thirty three hearings were adjourned due to other parties’ or expert’s failure to appear, upon the other parties’ requests, due to the absence of the judges, because the courts needed to collect additional evidence or for unspecified reasons. Three expert examinations were ordered and lasted for one year and five months. 11.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant company lodged a claim against the S. company, seeking the recovery of pecuniary amounts. 12.  Following two remittals of the case by the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court for fresh examination, on 13 October 2010 the Donetsk Commercial Court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. 13.  On 17 November 2010 and 20 April 2011, respectively, the Donetsk Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court upheld the above judgment. 14.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings nine hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s representative’s failure to appear or upon both parties’ requests, which protracted the proceedings by six months approximately. Seven hearings were adjourned because the courts needed to collect additional evidence or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for two years and seven months.