5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Tbilisi. 6.  In a judgment of 29 November 1999, the Didube-Chughureti District Court in Tbilisi recognised the applicant’s mother as the owner of part of her family house. Under a gift contract of 26 January 2000, the applicant’s mother had donated her estate to her three children, including the applicant. The contract was certified by a notary and recorded in the Public Registry. 7.  According to the applicant, her part of the house was occupied by Mr E. – a descendant of the family who had been leasing the premises since 1923. The legal relations between her ancestors and those of Mr E. had allegedly represented an informal tenancy whereby the tenants had held possession with the landlords’ consent but without any fixed terms. 8.  On 17 February 2000 the applicant brought an action against Mr E., his spouse and aunt, requesting their eviction on account of the failure to pay rent (“the eviction proceedings”). The claim was registered at the Didube-Chughureti District Court in Tbilisi (“the District Court”) on the same day. 9.  Between 29 February and 20 July 2000, four hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request, the District Court ordering the competent State agencies to submit information about the respondents’ tenancy rights. 10.  On 25 July and 21 September 2000 the District Court adjourned hearings in view of, respectively, the respondents’ absence and their request to conduct a technical assessment of the disputed house. The District Court raised with an expert of the Ministry of Justice a number of questions about the architecture of the house. No deadline was set for the expert’s reply. 11.  On 25 October 2000 an expert reported to the District Court that, in view of the absence of proper land registration records, he had been unable to clarify the main issue – whether or not the respondents had occupied the applicant’s estate. 12.  Between 5 February and 2 July 2001, five hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request – due to her illness, the need to hire an advocate and her overseas trip. She returned to Georgia in August 2001, of which fact the District Court was informed in due time. 13.  On 6 November 2001 the applicant filed an amended statement of claim together with additional documents. 14.  Hearings scheduled for 26 December 2001 and 27 February 2002 were adjourned due to the judge’s sick leave and the absence of the respondents’ advocate. 15.  On 12 March 2002 the respondents obtained from the District Court an injunction preventing the applicant from recording her estate in the Land Register, pending the eviction proceedings. 16.  Between 10 April and 27 May 2002, three hearings were adjourned at the request of the respondents’ advocate. The latter referred to the need to familiarise herself with the applicant’s amended claim of 6 November 2001 and its supporting documents, and asked the District Court to collect additional information from various State agencies. 17.  On 3 June 2002 the respondents requested the District Court to quash the final judgment of 29 November 1999 (“the reopening request”). Claiming that the eviction proceedings were contingent upon the reopening, they requested the District Court to stay the former pending the resolution of the latter. That request was granted on 20 June 2002. 18.  The reopening request being dismissed at several instances and, lastly, by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 10 June 2003, the District Court, having granted the applicant’s request of 14 July 2003, resumed the eviction proceedings either in late July or early August 2003. 19.  On 1 September 2003 the District Court, pursuant to the applicant’s request, ordered the competent State agencies to submit additional information about the respondents’ ancestors. 20.  Between 2 October 2003 and 23 January 2004, five hearings were adjourned at both parties’ requests. Either the respondents needed time to hire a new advocate and to study the applicant’s pleadings, or vice versa. One adjournment was accepted because of the death of Mr E.’s aunt. 21.  On 4 March 2004 the District Court, pursuant to the respondents’ request, ruled under section 8(1) of the amendment of 5 December 2003 to the Use of Dwellings Act to stay the eviction proceedings. The applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against that ruling, which was finally dismissed by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 30 April 2004. 22.  In the meantime, a reorganisation of the judicial system of Georgia was carried out, as a result of which the Tbilisi City Court (“the City Court”) was established and took over the case. 23.  On 20 and 26 July 2005 the applicant requested the City Court to resume the eviction proceedings on the basis of amendments on 30 June 2005 to the Dwellings Act and to the Code of Civil Procedure. As no reply was forthcoming, the applicant reiterated her request on 16 September 2005, emphasising that the City Court had been obliged by this legislation to decide her case within a month of receiving her first request of 20 July 2005. 24.  Between July and September 2005, the applicant requested the City Court to provide her with copies of the case materials. It appeared, however, that the file was misplaced in the archives. 25.  The exact date of the resumption of the eviction proceedings was not disclosed by the parties’ submissions. According to the case file, those proceedings were pending again by 13 March 2006, on which date a hearing was adjourned due to the respondents’ absence. On the same day the applicant requested and the City Court granted leave to admit her fresh pleadings to the file. 26.  On 27 March 2006 the applicant requested the City Court to annul the District Court’s injunction of 12 March 2002. 27.  A hearing scheduled for 5 May 2006 was adjourned at the request of the respondents’ advocate, the latter complaining that he had not been served with a copy of the applicant’s request of 27 March 2006 and had thus been unable to prepare a reply. That advocate further requested and the City Court granted leave to adduce documents about the respondents’ ancestors and their tenancy rights. The applicant objected, noting that the file already contained such information. 28.  On 30 May and 9 August 2006 the respondents submitted written comments on the applicant’s request of 27 March 2006. 29.  On 1 August 2007 the City Court, allowing the respondents’ request, ruled that a technical expert assessment of the disputed part of the house was necessary for the proper examination of the case. In view of the respondent’s disagreement with the applicant’s allegation that the area of their tenancy coincided with that of her estate, the court ruled that an expert of the Ministry of Justice be charged with replying to a number of questions concerning the architecture of the house. The questions were similar to those posed by the District Court on 21 September 2000 (see paragraphs 10‑11 above). The City Court did not set a deadline for the Ministry of Justice to reply. Pending the expertise, the eviction proceedings were stayed. 30.  According to the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the City Court. To date they have thus lasted more than eight years and eleven months.