4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Korolev, a town in the Moscow Region. 5.  In 1990 the applicant underwent surgery on her right hand in a local hospital. The applicant alleges that the operation was unsuccessful because of the negligence of the medical personnel, with the result that her ability to move her right hand was impaired. 6.  On 24 April 1994 the applicant brought proceedings against the hospital, seeking compensation for harm inflicted on her as a result of medical negligence. 7.  Following an order of the court, on 10 April 1995 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination at the Forensic Examination Bureau of the Moscow City Health Department (“the Bureau”). 8.  On 14 December 1995 the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) dismissed the applicant's civil action as unfounded. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 12 February 1996. 9.  Following a request by the applicant, on 5 December 1996 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 14 December 1995, as upheld on 12 February 1996, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court. 10.  On 2 February 1998 the District Court ordered another forensic examination to be performed by the Bureau and stayed the proceedings pending its results. However, on an unspecified date the Bureau informed the District Court that it could not proceed with the examination, because it had already conducted the initial forensic examination in the applicant's case. 11.  On 23 April 1998 the District Court ordered another forensic examination to be performed by the Forensic Medical Examination Centre of the Russian Ministry of Health (“the Centre”). 12.  On 12 May 1998 the Centre informed the District Court that the examination was rather costly and required an advance payment. However, since both parties to the proceedings refused to make an advance payment, on an unspecified date the case file was returned to the District Court. 13.  Following a request by the applicant, on 21 October 1998 the District Court put further questions to the Bureau. The applicant was requested to provide the Bureau with her medical documents. The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the examination. 14.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant asked the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics to issue her with her medical file, but the request was refused. 15.  On 22 July 1999 the applicant's medical file was obtained from the above Institute by the District Court. The case file does not contain any information on whether the Bureau provided the District Court with answers to the further questions raised by the applicant. 16.  Following a request by the applicant, on 6 September 1999 the District Court again ordered the new forensic examination to be performed by the Centre. 17.  Between 5 January and 10 February 2000 the Centre carried out a new forensic examination. 18.  On 29 March 2000 the District Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 25 April 2000. However, on 25 April and 8 June 2000 the District Court postponed the hearing until 8 June and 29 June 2000 respectively, because the applicant's lawyer was busy and could not attend. On 29 June 2000 the hearing was postponed until 6 July 2000, because the respondent's representative could not attend. 19.  On 6 July 2000 the District Court ordered an additional forensic examination to be performed by the Bureau, with the participation of experts from the Centre. The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the above examination. However, on 26 February 2001 the Bureau informed the District Court that it could not proceed with the examination, because it had already given its opinion after having conducted the initial examination. 20.  From 11 May to 31 October 2001 no hearings were scheduled, because the case was being transferred to another judge. 21.  Following a request by the applicant, on 31 October 2001 the District Court ruled out the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics as a defendant in the case. The hearing was postponed until 7 December 2001. 22.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court excluded the expert opinion gained between 5 January and 10 February 2000 from the evidence. 23.  On 14 December 2001 the hearing was postponed until 11 February 2002 because of the judge's illness. 24.  On 11 February 2002 the District Court, in the applicant's absence, ordered a new forensic examination to be performed by the Centre. The court ordered the defendant to cover the costs connected with the above examination and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. There is no information in the case file on whether the above examination ever took place. 25.  On 30 May 2002 the District Court ordered an additional forensic examination to be performed by the Bureau. 26.  Between 19 September 2002 and 25 February 2003 the Bureau conducted the additional forensic examination. 27.  On an unspecified date the proceedings resumed. 28.  On 9 October 2003 the District Court held a hearing and questioned the experts. It appears that the applicant was not apprised of this hearing. For this reason, on 10 October 2003 she requested the court to call the experts once again so that she could cross-examine them. 29.  It appears that the District Court granted the applicant's request and scheduled a new hearing for 13 November 2003, but the applicant was unable to appear before the court on that date because of illness. The court apparently postponed the hearing and rescheduled it for 3 December 2003. 30.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant informed the District Court by telegram that she would be unable to attend the hearing on 3 December 2003 because she was ill, and requested the court to postpone it. The registry of the court received the telegram on the same date. 31.  On 3 December 2003 the District Court refused the applicant's request to postpone the hearing. The court observed that the applicant had not formulated any new claims in addition to those contained in her written submissions, nor had she presented any supplementary evidence. The court accordingly decided to hold the hearing and to examine the applicant's claims on the basis of her written submissions. The representatives of the defendant hospital were present at the hearing. Having heard the experts and the defendant's representatives, the District Court allowed the applicant's claims in part and ordered the hospital to pay her damages. 32.  The applicant appealed, complaining in particular that the first-instance judgment had been given in her absence. On 2 February 2004 the Moscow City Court delivered its decision. The court reviewed the applicant's case on points of facts and law and upheld the judgment of 3 December 2003, having noted that the applicant's absence from the first-instance court had in no way affected the lawfulness of its judgment. The applicant, as well as the defendant hospital's representatives, attended the appeal hearing and made oral submissions. It does not appear that the applicant presented any new arguments or evidence in support of her claims. 33.  Following a request by the applicant, on 29 September 2005 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 3 December 2003 and the appeal decision of 2 February 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court. The reasons for the above quashing were not made available to the Court. 34.  On 2 February 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims in part and ordered the hospital to pay her damages. It appears that the applicant was present at the above hearing. The case file does not contain any further information as to whether the judgment was appealed against.