4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Nowogard, Poland. 5.  The applicant co-owned an estate. On 15 January 1988 she filed with the Goleniów District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action against the other co-owners for overdue rent and the recovery of possession of some property located on that estate. 6.  On 30 June 1992 the court gave judgment, in which it dismissed the action. 7.  On 9 March 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that judgment. 8.  On 12 May 1993 she requested the reopening of the proceedings, submitting that she had not been notified of the appellate hearing. 9.  On 16 September 1993 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 March 1993 and a part of the District Court's judgment. It remitted the part of the case concerning rent for re-examination. 10.  On 24 November 1994 the District Court summoned the applicant to specify her claim. On 16 February 1995 the court, having received the applicant's response, requested her to specify it once more. 11.  On 28 March 1995 the case was transferred to the Szczecin Regional Court, which was competent to examine it as a court of the first-instance. 12.  On 31 October 1995 it held a hearing. The applicant withdrew her claim against one of the co-owners and raised a claim against the Goleniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy), which also co-owned the disputed property. 13.  On 5 September 1996 the court held a hearing. On the same day it summoned the Goleniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) to participate in the procedure as the defendant. 14.  On 18 July 1997 the court stayed the proceedings after the applicant's failure to specify her claim within the set time-limit. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 15.  On 8 August 1997 she requested that her legal-aid lawyer be replaced with another one. 16.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant's lawyer asked the court to resume the examination of the case. On 26 May 1999 the court summoned the applicant to specify her claim and identify the defendant. The applicant submitted that that order was not served on her. She stated that she had been unable to comply with the court order because of difficulty in assessing the value of the property the possession of which she had sought. 17.  By 28 August 2003 the court had not resumed the proceedings. 18.  On 6 June 1991 the applicant filed with the Goleniów District Court an action in which she requested that the co-ownership of an estate be dissolved. 19.  On 17 December 1993 and 12 January 1994 the court held hearings. 20.  In March 1994 an expert opinion was prepared. 21.  The Government submitted that on 22 March 1994 the applicant challenged that opinion and changed her statement of claim. The applicant stated that she had never challenged that opinion and that the modification of her claim had only followed the conclusions of the expert opinion. 22.  On 19 April 1995, as well as 12 June and 17 July 1996 the court held hearings. In June 1996 the applicant changed her statement of claim. 23.  On 12 November 1996 the court exempted the participants to the proceedings from fees relating to an expert opinion. It also ordered the preparation of an opinion. 24.  In 1997 an expert proposed two projects for the division of the estate. The applicant requested a correction to those projects. The Goleniów District Office, being one of the co-owners of the disputed property, did not accept the correction proposed by applicant. 25.  On 17 November 1997 the court issued a decision on remuneration for an expert. In February 1998 that decision was amended. 26.  On 20 May and 30 November 1998 hearings were held. 27.  On 10 December 1998 an expert opinion was ordered. 28.  On 10 February 1999 the court awarded the expert remuneration for the opinion. The applicant appealed that decision. In reply to the court's enquiry, she stated that in fact she intended to challenge that opinion. 29.  On 30 April and 17 May 1999 the court held hearings. 30.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant challenged the participation of an expert in the proceedings. On 12 July 1999 the court dismissed her challenge. On 19 August 1999 it rejected the applicant's appeal against that decision. 31.  On 9 February and 10 April 2000 the court held hearings. It ordered the preparation of another expert opinion. In September an expert informed the court that due to a heavy workload he was unable to prepare that opinion. 32.  On 30 November 2000 the court ordered another expert to carry on that opinion. The expert submitted the opinion in February 2001 and an annex to it in June 2001. The applicant submitted that she was served with a copy of that opinion on 24 July 2001. Subsequently, she challenged it. 33.  The hearing scheduled for 26 November 2001 was adjourned because of the absence of an expert. 34.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant modified her claim. 35.  On 19 December 2001 and 11 January 2002 the court held hearings. 36.  On 13 February 2002 it gave judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal. 37.  On 21 January 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed her appeal.