4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bitola. 5.  The applicant worked in a private company Megaplast (“the employer”) as a manual worker on a hydraulic compressing machine between 1 December 1995 and 23 November 1996 when an accident happened in which the machine crushed her left hand. As a result, two fingers were amputated. 6. On 27 May 1997 the applicant brought before the Bitola Court of First Instance a civil action for damages for the injuries sustained in the accident. 7.  On 29 May 1997 the court provided the applicant with a warning letter requesting her to pay the court fees. 8.  On 24 April 1998 the applicant requested the court to fix a hearing. 9.  On 29 May 1998 the court held a preparatory hearing (подготвително рочиште) during which the employer declared its intention to submit a counter-claim (противтужба) for compensation for the pecuniary loss caused in releasing the applicant's fingers from the machine and for loss of income. The court stated that it would schedule a hearing after the employer lodged its counter-claim. 10. On 24 June 1998 the employer submitted the counter-claim and observations in reply to the applicant's claim. 11. On 19 March 1999 the court ordered an expert examination. 12. On 31 March 1999 the court carried out an on-site inspection. On 14 April 1999 the expert submitted his report. On 21 April 1999 another expert drew up a further report. 13. On 14 December 1999 a medical examination was completed concerning the severity of her injuries and the degree of pain sustained by her. 14. A hearing fixed for 2 March 2000 was adjourned at the employer's request. The court ordered witnesses to be summoned for examination. 15. At a hearing of 20 March 2000 the trial re-started as a different panel of judges (судски совет) had taken over the case. The court adjourned the hearing as the witnesses were not properly summoned and the employer disputed the expert reports. 16. Hearings dated 20 April and 19 May 2000 were postponed because the witnesses and the experts were incorrectly summoned. At the latter hearing, the composition of the panel of judges was changed. 17. On 15 June 2000 the trial again re-started as the composition of the panel of judges changed. The court examined two witnesses, the parties concerned and one of the experts. It adjourned the hearing so that the expert would submit an additional report based on the employer's comments. 18. On 7 July 2000 the Bitola Court of First Instance partially upheld the applicant's claim and awarded non-pecuniary damages in foreign currency to be converted into Macedonian denar. It also dismissed the employer's counter-claim. 19. On 10 July 2000 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from paying the court fees (судска такса) because of lack of funds. 20. On 17 November 2000 the employer appealed. On 8 May 2001 the file was transferred to the court of appeal for consideration. In the meantime, the trial court had ordered the parties to pay the court fees. On 23 April 2001 it ordered the Public Payment Office (Завод за Платен Промет) to transfer the amount due from the employer's account. 21. On 5 April 2001 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the employer. On the same date they were completed. 22.  On 7 June 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's decision concerning the amount of the award and remitted that part for fresh consideration. It endorsed the reasons given by the trial court, but considered it unlawful to award damages in foreign currency. It further instructed the trial court to order the applicant to further particularise her claim in the correct currency. It also upheld the dismissal of the employer's counter-claim. 23. On 12 June 2001 the first-instance court received the case-file from the appellate court. 24. On 31 March 2003 the employer's representative informed the court that the employer had ceased to exist. 25. On 11 April 2003 the Bitola Court of First Instance rejected the applicant's claim as the employer had ceased to exist. None of the parties attended the hearing despite being properly summoned. The decision was served on the parties on 5 May 2003. 26. On 13 May 2003 the applicant appealed arguing that the trial court should have terminated the proceedings instead of rejecting her claim. 27. On 20 October 2003 the court ordered the Public Revenue Office (Управа за Јавни Приходи) (“the Office”) to collect the court fees from the applicant. In that respect, on 22 December 2003 the Office submitted a warning letter to the applicant. 28. On 22 January 2004 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision. It was served on the applicant on 16 February 2004. 29. On 12 December 2003 the public prosecutor rejected the applicant's criminal charges for fraudulent insolvency brought against the employer's founders. She took over the prosecution as a subsidiary complainant. On 14 December 2004 the investigating judge of the Bitola Court of First Instance allowed her criminal complaint and initiated an investigation against the employer's founders. 30. On 7 July 2005 the Bitola Court of First Instance acquitted the accused. The applicant was further instructed to institute separate civil proceedings for damages. 31. On 3 October 2005 the applicant appealed. 32. On 11 January 2006 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. It was served on the applicant on 20 January 2006.