4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Cologne (Köln). 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant and her husband entered into a notarial purchase agreement regarding the acquisition of real property with a house for the purchase price of 325,000.00 euros (EUR). The vendor assured them in the notarial purchase deed that the house disposed of two separate apartments and had all necessary permits for use by two parties. 7.  In January 2004 the applicant learned that parts of the construction had been carried out without the required permission and that the use of the building by two parties had not been authorised. 8.  The applicant then set time-limits for the vendor to rectify the corresponding defects on various occasions and retained part of the purchase price. Following the expiry of a final deadline set for August 2004 without the defects being removed, the applicant, who had meanwhile paid part of the purchase price in the amount of EUR 262,000.00, set off the residual sum in the amount of EUR 63,000.00 against her claim for compensation for the damage incurred by her due to the defects. The vendor for his part refused transfer of title. 9.  In the following the vendor commissioned structural alteration works to be carried out on the real property in line with a construction permit obtained on 1 September 2004. However, the applicant found the alteration works to be insufficient and maintained the set-off. 10.  On 28 October 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings against the vendor of the property before the Cologne Regional Court (Landgericht) for transfer of title and possession (file No. 8 O 391/04). 11.  On 26 November 2004 upon receipt of advance payments for court costs by the applicant, the Regional Court scheduled a first hearing for 21 April 2005. 12.  In January 2005 the vendor announced the commencement of execution as regards the outstanding part of the purchase price. 13.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action to oppose execution of the vendor’s claim for payment of the residual amount of the purchase price (Vollstreckungsabwehrklage) with the Cologne Regional Court (file No. 8 O 23/05) and requested an interim order for suspension of execution until a judgment in the case had been rendered. 14.  On 19 January 2005 the Regional Court also scheduled a first hearing in this matter for 21 April 2005. 15.  On 28 January 2005 the Regional Court ordered the provisional discontinuation of the execution of the vendor’s claim for payment of the remaining purchase price against provision of security (Sicherheitsleistung). 16.  On 21 April 2005 a hearing took place in both proceedings (file No. 8 O 391/04 and file No. 8 O 23/05), upon which the applicant and the vendor agreed that transfer of the real property should take place on 28 or 29 April 2005 in accordance with the stipulations of the notarial purchase deed. The parties also asked for both proceedings to be suspended. It appears that the applicant took possession of the property on the agreed dates. 17.  Following a request by the vendor on 14 June 2005 for both proceedings to be resumed, the Regional Court summoned the parties by order of 24 June 2005 to a hearing that took place on 10 November 2005. On the occasion of the hearing the applicant submitted written observations requesting in addition to her claim for transfer of title and possession, compensation in the amount of EUR 32,405.30. The hearing was postponed pending receipt of advance payments for court costs regarding the applicant’s additional claim. 18.  A new hearing was scheduled by the Regional Court on 28 December 2005 upon receipt of the further advance payments for court costs by the applicant for 11 May 2006. 19.  On 4 May 2006 the applicant, following repeated extensions of the initial time-limit set for 6 April 2006, submitted further written observations. 20.  At the hearing of 11 May 2006 the Regional Court set a time-limit until 26 May 2006 for further written submissions by the vendor in reply to the applicant’s written submissions of 4 May 2006. The applicant was granted the same time-limit for written submissions with a view to specifying the claims to be set off against the remaining purchase price. 21.  By a decision of 13 July 2006 regarding both proceedings the Regional Court indicated to what extent the existence of the alleged structural defects still had to be substantiated by the applicant and further pointed out that a corresponding expert opinion which had been obtained on the applicant’s own motion did not constitute sufficient evidence in this respect. The Regional Court also submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement between the parties comprising both proceedings and granted the parties a time-limit of four weeks for their related comments. 22.  On 14 August 2006 the vendor submitted written observations to which the applicant replied on 5 September 2006. The vendor commented by written pleadings of 2 November 2006 and the applicant replied on 8 December 2006. 23.  By written submissions to the Regional Court dated 10 and 26 October, 2 November and 8  December 2006 as well as by a letter dated 29 January 2007, the applicant and her lawyer emphasised the urgency of a decision in the matter in view of the increasing financial burden for the applicant resulting from the unclear legal situation. 24.  On 16 March 2007 the Regional Court informed the applicant’s lawyer that a decision on how to proceed in the case could not yet be taken due to a further change in the person of the judge rapporteur. The Regional Court explained that the new judge rapporteur had not yet had the time to become familiarised with the complex case since other matters were to be treated as a priority. 25.  On the occasion of a telephone conversation with the acting judge on 20 March 2007 and by written submissions to the Regional Court dated 23 April 2007 the applicant’s lawyer again pointed out that, as the applicant could not use the acquired property, she faced serious economic losses and stressed the importance of a decision by the Regional Court in due course so that the property would no longer lie as a wasted asset. 26.  By a letter dated 27 April 2007 the presiding judge apologised to the applicant for the delays in the proceedings pointing out that the delays prior to the change of the judge rapporteur could not be attributed to the court. 27.  On 16 May 2007 the Regional Court decided to order a joint expert opinion for both proceedings with a view to determining the actual defects and the measures required to have the structural alterations authorised. 28.  On 27 June 2007, following receipt of the advance payment for the related expenses by the applicant, the Regional Court charged the appointed expert with the preparation of the opinion and set a time-limit of three months for its finalisation. 29.  On 6 July 2007 the vendor notified the architect who had been working for him of the litigation in view of a possible third party intervention (Streitverkündung) in the proceedings. By written submissions of 9 August 2007 the architect joined the proceedings on the vendor’s side as a third party defendant. 30.  On 23 August 2007 the expert carried out a local inspection of the real property. 31.  On 20 September 2007 the Regional Court requested the expert to repeat the local inspection. 32.  The expert opinion was rendered on 12 December 2007. 33.  By written submissions of 28 December 2007 the applicant again extended her claim and requested compensation in the additional amount of EUR 41,600.00 plus interest for loss of rent for the period from May 2005 to December 2007 and asked that the vendor be obliged to compensate all further damages caused by the lack of a permit for use of the house by two parties and by the insufficient alteration works carried out by the vendor. 34.  On 18 January 2008 the Regional Court forwarded the expert opinion of 12 December 2007 to the parties for comments to be submitted within a time-limit of six weeks. The applicant and the third party defendant requested the commissioning of a supplementary expert opinion. 35.  On 1 April 2008 the Regional Court decided to request a second expert opinion with a view to determining the costs of the measures required to bring the house in line with the requirements of the building permit. 36.  On 30 April 2008 the expert was charged with the preparation of the corresponding opinion and given a time-limit of three months for its finalisation. 37.  Following an inquiry by the Regional Court on 5 September 2008, the expert announced that the opinion would be finalised by the end of September 2008. It was delivered on 24 September 2008. 38.  On 15 October  2008 the expert opinion was served on the parties who were granted a time-limit of one month for possible comments. The third party defendant raised further objections against the expert opinion and requested a further supplementary opinion or, alternatively, asked that the expert be heard by the court. The applicant also asked for a supplementary expert opinion. 39.  On 19 December 2008 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing for the 23 April 2009 to which the expert was summoned with a view to further clarifying her findings. 40.  On the occasion of the hearing on 23 April 2009 the expert replied to questions raised by the parties and the third party defendant with respect to her expert opinion. The Regional Court made a further proposal for a friendly settlement in both proceedings to the parties and set a time-limit for 22 May 2009 for the parties’ related comments. A decision in both matters was announced for 18 June 2009. 41.  By written submissions dated 8 May 2009 the applicant rejected the court’s proposal for a friendly settlement. 42.  On 25 June 2009 the Regional Court rendered judgments in both proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for transfer of title to the real property since only an amount of EUR 25,078.76 could be set off by the applicant and the remainder of the purchase price had thus not been fully paid but awarded her damages for additional building costs in the amount of EUR 4.270,00 (file No. 8 O 391/04). Considering that EUR 287,078.76 of the purchase price had already been paid by the applicant, the court further declared the execution of the vendor’s claim for payment inadmissible with respect to this amount (file No. 8 O 23/05). 43.  By written submissions of 27 July 2009 (file No. 8 O 23/05) and 25 August 2009 (file No. 391/04) respectively, the applicant lodged appeals against the said judgments with the Cologne Court of Appeal. 44.  A hearing that was scheduled by the Court of Appeal in both proceedings for 14 January 2010 was postponed to 4 February 2010 since the third party defendant’s lawyer was unable to attend. 45.  On 25 March 2010 the Court of Appeal rendered judgments in both proceedings. It dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court in the proceedings regarding transfer of title to the real property (file No. 12 U 51/09). As regards the proceedings concerning execution of the vendor’s claim for payment, the Court of Appeal amended the Regional’s Court’s judgment considering that the purchase price already paid by the applicant amounted to EUR 298,232.76 and that with respect to this amount execution of the vendor’s claim for payment of the purchase price was inadmissible. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal (file No. 12 U 45/09).