4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Austria. 5.  On 26 August 1993 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against 16 clients (hereafter the “defendants”), claiming approximately two million Austrian schillings (about 145 000 €) for work effected in the construction of semi-detached houses. 6.  On 12, 13 and 15 October 1993 the defendants filed their submissions. On 18 November 1993 the applicant company filed further submissions. 7.  On 2 December 1993 the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht) held an oral hearing and adjourned the case to 28 February 1994 in order to hear a witness on the question whether the applicant company had properly effected the construction work. 8.  On 24 February 1994 the applicant company filed further submissions. 9.  On 28 February 1994 the St. Pölten Regional Court heard a witness and adjourned the hearing in order to hear an expert. On 28 March 1994 the court appointed an expert. On 30 March 1994 the defendants filed further submissions. On 6 June 1994 the expert visited the locus in quo (Befundaufnahme). 10.  On 26 January 1996 the expert submitted his report, comprising some 200 pages. The report dealt inter alia with the question to what extent the ascertained deficiencies had to be attributed to the applicant company, which had carried out the construction work, or to the planning engineer, the building supervisor, other craftsmen or the defendants. 11.  On 30 January 1996 the court asked the parties of the proceedings to file comments on the expert opinion within two weeks. Upon the requests of the applicant company and the defendants the court subsequently extended the time-limit to six weeks. On 12 and 18 March 1996, respectively, the defendants and the applicant company filed their comments on the expert opinion. Upon the court’s request the applicant company, on 9 April 1996, supplemented  its comments. 12.  On 12 December 1996 the St. Pölten Regional Court held another hearing and adjourned the case to 10 March 1997 to hear further witnesses. 13.  On 14 January 1997 the court ordered the expert to supplement his opinion. On 5 March 1997 the expert submitted his supplementary findings. 14.  On 10 March 1997 the court heard two witnesses and adjourned the case to 26 June 1997. 15.  On 26 June 1997 the court held another hearing and adjourned the case in order to hear further witnesses. 16.  On 18 July 1997 the court granted the application of two defendants to order the expert to prepare an opinion on moisture in their houses for the purpose of preserving evidence (Beweissicherungsantrag). On 22 December 1998 the expert submitted his opinion. 17.  In March and April 1999 the defendants’ counsel informed the court that discussions concerning a friendly settlement were underway. 18.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant company filed an application for accelaration of the proceedings under Section 91 (Fristsetzungsantrag) of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) and asked that a time-limit be set for the Regional Court to hold another hearing or to issue the decision. 19.  On 25 May 1999 the court scheduled another hearing for 14 October 1999. Due to the absence of a witness the hearing was later postponed to 11 November. 20.  On 11 November 1999 the St. Pölten Regional Court heard further witnesses. The applicant company and the defendants filed further submissions. 21.  On 25 November 1999 the court ordered the expert to submit a further opinion for the purpose of preserving evidence. On 23 February 2000 the court visited the locus in quo for the purpose of preserving evidence. On 8 August 2000 the expert submitted his opinion. 22.  On 7 February 2001 the applicant company filed further submissions. 23.  On 12 February 2001 the court held a hearing, at which the applicant company and the defendants each submitted a private expert opinion. On 20 March 2001, the applicant company filed further submissions. On 18 June 2001 the court held a further hearing. A hearing scheduled for 8 October 2001 was cancelled due to an illness of the applicant company’s counsel. 24.  On 21 January 2002 the court held a further hearing, and dismissed the applicant company’s motion for bias against the court-appointed expert. It further granted the defendants’ request to supplement the expert opinion, ordered them to pay an advance to the expert’s fees and adjourned the case for an indefinitive time. 25.  On 22 April 2002 the defendants paid the advance to the expert’s fees. Subsequently, on 25 April 2002 the court ordered the expert to supplement his opinion. 26.  On 13 September 2002 the court, upon the expert’s request, asked the Central Institute for Meteorolgy and Geodynamics (Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik) to provide information on a number of issues. On 9 October 2002 the said institute submitted the requested information. 27.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant company filed a further application under Section 91 of the Courts Act requesting that a time-limit of four weeks be set for the submission of the supplementary expert opinion. 28.  On 15 October 2002 the Regional Court, upon the defendants’ request of 10 September 2002, ordered the expert to submit a further opinion for the purpose of preserving evidence. 29.  On 9 December 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant’s request under Section 91 of the Courts Act. Having regard to the complexity of the case and the multitude of submissions filed by the parties, it found that the Regional Court had not been dilatory. 30.  On 28 January 2003 the expert submitted his opinion on the purpose of preserving evidence. He further requested the applicant company to submit missing accounting documents concerning the constructions. 31.  On 19 February 2003 the court ordered the applicant company to submit the requested documents and dismissed the applicant company’s further motion for bias against the expert. 32.  On 25 March 2003 the defendants filed further submissions. 33.  On 14 May 2003 the applicant company filed another application under Section 91 of the Courts Act requesting that a time-limit of four weeks be set for the submission of the supplementary expert opinion. On 14 July 2003 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s request, again finding that the court had not been dilatory. 34.  On 30 September 2003 the competent judge retired. 35.  On 3 October 2003 the expert submitted his supplementary opinion. 36.  On 16 October 2003 the new judge in charge of the case requested the applicant company and the defendants to submit their comments to the supplemented expert opinion within four weeks. It subsequently granted the parties’ requests to extend the time-limit to 4 and 5 December 2003 respectively. On 1 December 2003 the applicant company submitted its comments to the supplemented expert opinion. 37.  On 30 December 2003 the court scheduled a further hearing for 18 February 2004. 38.  Currently, the proceedings are still pending before the St. Pölten Regional Court.