4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 20 June 1997 the applicant claimed a sum of money (the equivalent of approximately 500 euros) from an individual before the Bratislava III District Court. 6.  On 27 August 1997 the District Court issued a payment order under which the debtor was obliged to pay the sum in issue to the applicant. The payment order was served on the applicant and on the defendant on 9 September 1997. It became final and binding on 25 September 1997. 7.  On 20 April 1998 the applicant requested the Bratislava III District Court to enforce its order. 8.  On 15 May 1998 the court asked the applicant to submit further information as regards her enforcement request and to pay a court fee. The applicant replied on 25 May 1998. In particular, she proposed that the sum in issue should be obtained by selling movable property from the premises of the debtor’s company. 9.  On 28 May 1998 the District Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered enforcement of the sum in question by means of selling the defendant’s movables. 10.  On 6 August 1998 a court bailiff visited the domicile of the defendant for the purpose of serving him with the District Court’s decision of 28 May 1998 and making a list of his movables. The action failed as the bailiff established that the defendant had been absent from his domicile for more than two years. 11.  On 7 August 1998 the court asked the Central Register of Citizens and the police for information about the defendant’s domicile. On 19 August 1998 and on 7 September 1998 the court received replies according to which the defendant had not been present at his domicile for two years and his whereabouts were unknown. 12.  On 7 September 1998 the court unsuccessfully requested information about the defendant’s whereabouts from the police and the Central Register of Prisoners. 13.  On 27 October 1998 the District Court delivered a decision declaring the enforcement of its order by selling the defendant’s movable property inadmissible on the ground that the whereabouts of the defendant were unknown. The applicant was notified of the court’s decision on 12 November 1998. The service of that decision on the defendant failed. 14.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision of 27 October 1998 and indicated the place where the defendant was staying. 15.  On 10 December 1998, on 13 January 1999 and on 16 February 1999 respectively the court sent by registered mail the applicant’s appeal to the defendant. The delivery failed as the defendant was present neither at his domicile nor at the address indicated by the applicant. On 10 March 1999 the letter was finally returned to the court as undeliverable. 16.  In April and November 2000 the applicant requested the District Court to proceed with the case. On 19 February 2001 she complained about delays in the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice. 17.  On 3 November 2000 the case file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the applicant’s appeal. 18.  On 21 February 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 27 October 1998. 19.  On 18 May 2001 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. On 28 June 2001 the District Court appointed a guardian to the defendant as his whereabouts were unknown. The District Court’s decision of 18 May 2001 was delivered to the guardian and it became final on 20 July 2001.