5.  The applicant was born in Cellino San Marco in Italy and lives in Berlin. 6.  On 11 November 1998 the applicant underwent a kidney transplant operation at the Charité Medical University in Berlin. Following complications after the operation, the transplanted kidney had to be removed and the applicant underwent a further operation. 7.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Charité Medical University claiming that they were medically liable for the unsuccessful kidney transplant. In particular, she requested the court to award her an adequate amount of damages for pain and suffering (Schmerzensgeld) and to declare that the defendant was liable for all future damage to her health (including latent damage) and any stress, worry or inconvenience caused by the defendant’s alleged malpractice. 8.  On 16 October 2001 the Berlin Regional Court ordered an urological expert report on the question whether the defendant, due to alleged insufficient post-operative treatment, had discovered the applicant’s urinary leak too late. On 15 November 2001 the Regional Court appointed the first expert who informed the court on 5 December 2001 that he would be unable to prepare the report. 9.  On 22 January 2002 the Regional Court requested the Lower Saxony Medical Association to designate an expert. On 28 March 2002 the Regional Court commissioned a second expert and set him a time-limit of three months for the preparation of his report. Between October 2002 and March 2003 the court inquired of the expert three times as to whether he had prepared his report. On 29 April 2003 it ordered him to deliver the latter within six weeks and announced its intention to impose a fine on him in case of non-compliance with that time-limit. 10.  On 26 August 2003 the Regional Court imposed a fine on the second expert, discharged him, and appointed a third expert. On 13 October 2003 the court set him a time-limit of six months for the preparation of his report. On 24 November 2003 the Regional Court requested the applicant to pay a further advance on the expert’s costs which the applicant paid on 19 December 2003. On 23 and 30 September 2004 the Regional Court extended the time-limit for the preparation of the expert’s report until 17 November 2004 after the expert had informed the court that his assistant whom he had entrusted with the preparation of the report had unexpectedly become unavailable. On 6 December 2004 the Regional Court received the expert report dated 12 November 2004. The expert invoiced for 28 hours’ work in the preparation of his report. 11.   On 4 February 2005 the applicant requested the Regional Court to extend the time-limit for the submission of her comments on the report. On 22 February 2005 she submitted her comments. 12.  On 10 May 2005, after having held a hearing, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action as being unfounded. 13.  On 27 May 2005 the judgment was served on the applicant’s representative.