4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bitola. 5.  On 29 May 1995 PTU “Bordo”-Bitola (“the company”) requested the then Bitola District Commercial Court (Окружен Стопански Суд Битола) to issue a payment order against another company (“the defendant”). The order was requested by the applicant, as the company's sole owner and manager. 6. On 7 June 1995 the Bitola District Commercial Court granted the company's request. 7. On 26 June 1995 the defendant objected to the order. 8. On 4 July 1995 the court upheld the defendant's objection and put aside the order. The subsequent proceedings continued as “civil”. 9. On 31 August 1995 the company requested the court to fix a hearing. 10. The hearing of 27 September 1995 was adjourned because of the applicant's absence. The court adjourned the hearing held on 4 October 1995 as the defendant's submission had not been communicated to the company in time. 11. On 12 October 1995 the Bitola District Commercial Court upheld the defendant's objection and dismissed the company's claim as ill-founded. 12. On 25 October 1995 the company appealed. 13. On 12 February 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the company's appeal and quashed the lower court's decision because of the latter's failure to establish the facts. 14. On 14 February 1997 the trial court received the case-file from the second-instance court. 15. On 7 October 1997 and 30 March 1998 the company requested the Bitola Court of First Instance (Основен суд Битола) to expedite the proceedings. 16. Five hearings scheduled between 8 April and 19 October 1998, were adjourned, but none at the applicant's request. During this time, the court examined three witnesses proposed by the defendant. 17. On 19 October 1998 the Bitola Court of First Instance dismissed the company's claim as unsubstantiated. 18. On 14 December 1998 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the company's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It further instructed the trial court to re-establish the facts and to order an expert examination of the financial books of the parties. 19. On 17 December 1998 the case-file was transmitted to the Bitola Court of First Instance. 20. The appellate court's decision was served on the parties on 20 and 21 January 1999, respectively. 21. On 28 April 1999 the court ordered the expert examination. On 17 August 1999 the trial court received the expert report. 22. On 20 October 1999 the court heard the parties' comments on the expert report and ordered an additional expert examination in reply to the company's queries. 23. On 25 May 2000 the company requested the court to adjourn the hearing listed for 16 June 2000. 24. The hearing fixed for 14 July 2000 was postponed as the expert had not completed his report. At the company's request, the court ordered another expert study. It also ordered the parties to pay the expert's costs. 25. On 13 December 2000 the court received the expert report. It was served on the parties on 28 August 2001. 26. The hearing of 3 October 2001 was adjourned at the parties' request. 27. On 22 October 2001 the company submitted its comments on the expert report. On 8 November 2001 the expert filed a supplement to his report. 28. The hearing of 14 November 2001 was adjourned due to the late service of the expert's report on the parties. The hearings of 26 December 2001 and 31 January 2002 were postponed because of the expert's absence. 29. On 12 February 2002 the court ordered the parties to provide in writing their comments on the expert report so that the expert could submit his observations in reply. It so ordered as the expert, who had attended the hearing, could not answer the questions put by the parties. 30. On 4 March 2002 the company informed the court that it would not dispute the expert report in order not to prolong the proceedings. 31. On 30 September 2002 the trial judge requested information from the registration department of the same court whether bankruptcy proceedings had been launched against the company. 32. The hearing of 1 November 2002 was adjourned at the request of the company's representative who had been then informed that the company had been declared insolvent on 8 February 2002. 33. On 12 November 2002 the Bitola Court of First Instance rejected the company's claim as it had ceased to exist. It did not comment on the applicant's argument that she, as the sole proprietor, had taken over the company's claim. 34. The applicant did not appeal. 35. Between 4 March 1999 and 23 September 2002 the company submitted before the trial court five requests to speed up the proceedings. On 9 May 2002 it also unsuccessfully complained before the State Judicial Council about the excessive length of the proceedings.