4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.  In January 1995 she was injured in a traffic accident. 5.  On 3 July 1998 the applicant lodged an action before the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow seeking compensation for damage from the owner of the car, a private company. 6.  On 8 July 1998 the Koptevskiy District Court adjourned the examination of the action until 20 July 1998 to allow the applicant to indicate possible evidence and clarify her claims. After she had duly fulfilled the instructions, on 20 July 1998 the Koptevskiy District Court asked the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow and certain hospitals to submit documents related to the traffic accident and the state of the applicant's health. The documents were received on 3 August 1998. In November 1998, following unsuccessful attempts to summons the respondent, the Koptevskiy District Court inquired the tax authorities about the company's legal address. 7.  In April 1999 the applicant successfully asked for adjournment of the proceedings until May 1999 because she was undergoing treatment in a hospital. On 24 September 1999 she amended her claims. 8.  On 28 September 1999 the Koptevskiy District Court listed a preparatory hearing for 7 October 1999. That hearing was adjourned until 14 October 1999 because the respondent defaulted. At the following hearing of 9 November 1999 the District Court, upon the applicant's request, charged the respondent's property and inquired the tax authorities about the respondent's bank accounts. On 22 November 1999, in response to the applicant's request, the Koptevskiy District Court charged the respondent's bank accounts. 9.  On 8, 10 and 15 December 1999 the applicant and her representative successfully asked the District Court to obtain additional evidence and invite a prosecutor to the proceedings. On 15 December 1999 the District Court also lifted the charging order in respect of certain property of the respondent. The decision was upheld on appeal on 10 January 2000. 10.  The Koptevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 19 January 2000. That hearing was adjourned because the applicant did not attend. At the following hearing of 22 February 2000 the applicant challenged the composition of the bench and petitioned the District Court for medical and technical expert opinions. The District Court adjourned the examination of the case until 23 March 2000 to allow the applicant to prepare questions to experts. 11.  Of the three hearings fixed between 23 March and 14 June 2000 two were adjourned because the judge was ill or participated in unrelated proceedings. 12.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant's representative successfully asked the District Court to stay the proceedings until 1 September 2000 because he could not attend hearings. 13.  The hearing fixed for 1 September 2000 was adjourned because the judge was ill. At the following hearing of 19 September 2000 the applicant successfully asked the District Court to stay the proceedings until 24 October 2000 to allow her to amend the claims. However, she defaulted at the hearing of 24 October 2000 and the District Court again stayed the proceedings until 5 December 2000. 14.  At the hearing of 5 December 2000 the applicant submitted the amended statement of claim and asked the court to perform a medical technical examination. The Koptevskiy District Court accepted the applicant's request, ordered the expert examination and appointed an expert bureau to perform it. The examination was to be performed by the Russian Centre of Forensic Medical Examinations. On 21 May 2001 the expert bureau returned the case-file to the District Court because it had no competence to perform such an examination. 15.  On 27 August 2001 the Koptevskiy District Court held that the medical examination should be performed by another expert bureau and stayed the proceedings. On 29 November 2001 the District Court received an expert report with answers to a part of the questions posed by the parties. The expert opinion responding to the parties' remaining questions was received in April 2002. 16.  On 14 May 2002 the Koptevskiy District Court resumed the proceedings and listed a hearing for 4 June 2002. At the hearing on 4 June 2002 the applicant successfully asked the District Court to stay the proceedings until July 2002 because she wanted to study the case-file. 17.  On 3 July 2002 the Koptevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for another expert examination. On the same day the District Court held in the applicant's favour and awarded her RUR 17,229.94 as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 18.  A week later the applicant initiated the appeal proceedings and submitted a short version of her statement of appeal. On 30 July 2002 she lodged the full version of the statement and also asked to restore the time-limit for lodging amendments to the District Court's records. 19.  On 12 May 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 3 July 2002.