4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Chervonozavodskoye, Poltava region, Ukraine. She is a widow who raises two daughters. 5.  The applicant worked as a salesperson in the “Kram” shop at the State-owned “Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat” distillery. 6.  In July 1998, in accordance with the findings of an inspection, which revealed the shortage of goods, the applicant was dismissed from her position. 7.  On 25 August 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lokhvytskiy District Court against her former employer challenging her dismissal. 8.  On 14 November 1998 the court found the case ready for examination and scheduled the hearing for 25 November 1998. 9.  On 21 November 1998, following the results of the inspection, a criminal case was instituted. 10. On 25 November 1998 the court postponed the hearing due to failure of the defendant's representative to appear. 11.  On 27 November 1998 the civil proceedings in the applicant's case were suspended until the investigation of the criminal case was completed. 12.  On 25 March 1999 the criminal proceedings were terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti in the applicant's actions. 13.  On 14 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned upon the applicant's request. 14.  On 17 December 2001 the court requested the Lokhvitsky District Prosecutor's Office to provide information about the results of the investigation. 15.  On 20 December 2001 the court was informed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been terminated. 16.  On 15 January 2002 the hearing was adjourned upon the defendant's request. 17.  On 14 June 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing. 18.  On 22 July 2002 the applicant modified her claim. 19.  On 23 July 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing in order to allow the defendant to study the new documents submitted by the applicant. 20.  On 2 October 2002 the court postponed the hearing due to the failure of the defendant's representative to appear. 21.  On 22 November 2002 the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant's representative. 22.  On 13 August 2003 the court partly allowed the applicant's claim and reinstated the applicant in her position. 23.  On 18 August 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal left the defendant's appeal against the above decision without a course and gave him the time to rectify the procedural shortcomings. 24.  On 18 December 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 25.  On 17 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation. 26.  On 11 August 2004 the proceedings before the Lokhvytskiy District Court commenced. 27.  On 19 August 2004 the court sent requests for information to the Lokhvitsky District Prosecutor's Office and the “Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat” distillery. 28.  On 12 November 2004 the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant's representative. 29.  On 20 December 2004 the defendant challenged Judge K. who was hearing the case, alleging his lack of impartiality. On the same day this complaint against Judge K. was allowed. 30.  On 2 February 2005 the newly appointed Judge S. referred the case to the President of the District Court for reassignment. On 23 February 2005 his self-disqualification was allowed. 31.  On 1 June 2005 the court adjourned the hearing due to the parties' failure to appear. 32.  On 30 June 2005 the defendant challenged Judge G.S. who was hearing the case, alleging his lack of impartiality. 33.  On 30 September 2005 this complaint against Judge G.S. was allowed and the case was referred to the Chornukhinskiy District Court. 34.  On 21 October 2005 the Chornukhinskiy District Court received the case. 35.  On 28 December 2005 the court partly allowed the applicant's claim. 36.  On 30 March 2006 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant's appeal and increased the salary awarded for the period of unlawful dismissal. 37.  The proceedings concerning the appeal in cassation filed by the applicant are currently pending before the Supreme Court.