4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. 5.  On 26 March 1999 she bought a plot of land and a summer house in Michurinsk. 6.  On 13 January 2000 a dealer who had assisted her in buying the property instituted proceedings against her, claiming recovery of a debt totalling 1,000 US dollars. 7.  On 24 April 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court of the Tambov Region dismissed the claim. 8.  On 29 May 2000 the Tambov Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Michurinskiy Town Court for a fresh examination. 9.  On 7 September 2000 the applicant filed an application for the case to be transferred to the Perovo District Court of Moscow. 10.  On 15 September 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court granted the application and transferred the case. On 20 September 2000 the case file was sent to the Perovo District Court. On 15 November 2000 the plaintiff filed a complaint against the transfer of the case. 11.  On 14 December 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested the Perovo District Court to confirm receipt of the case file. On 25 December 2000 and 15 February 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested the Perovo District Court to send the case file back so that the plaintiff's complaint could be examined. On 21 February 2001 the Perovo District Court replied that it could not return the case file because the case in question had not been registered with it in the period 2000-2001. On 2 April 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court again repeated the request. On 7 May 2001 the Perovo District Court returned the case file to the Michurinskiy Town Court. 12.  On 12 July 2001, following an application for supervisory review lodged by a member of the Presidium, the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court quashed the Michurinskiy Town Court's ruling of 15 September 2000 concerning transfer of the case to the Perovo District Court of Moscow on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not been duly notified of the hearing. 13.  According to the Government, two hearings were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 28 August and 13 September 2001, but the applicant did not appear at either hearing. It is not clear whether these were hearings on the merits or whether the court was merely dealing with certain procedural issues. 14.  On 28 January 2002, following another application for supervisory review lodged by the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the ruling of 12 July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant had not been duly notified of the hearing, and remitted the case to the Tambov Regional Court for a fresh examination. 15.  On 21 March 2002 the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court again quashed the ruling of the Michurinskiy Town Court of 15 September 2000. 16.  On 25 April 2002 the applicant filed an application with the Michurinskiy Town Court, requesting that the case be transferred to the Perovo District Court. 17.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Chairman of the Supreme Court requesting supervisory review of the ruling of 21 March 2002. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court returned the application without consideration, as a number of procedural requirements had not been fulfilled. 18.  Two hearings on the merits were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 15 and 22 August 2003. The parties did not appear at either of those hearings. On the latter date the court decided to leave the claim without consideration. That ruling was not appealed against.