4.  The applicant is a private company based in Lugansk, Ukraine. 5.  The JSC Panel House Building Company No. 4 (“the company”) used the applicant company’s invention under a licence contract. 6.  On 27 July 1998 the applicant company instituted proceedings against the company in the Kyiv City Commercial Court (“the first-instance court”). The applicant company alleged that the company had not made instalment payments due to it under the licence contract. 7.  On 1 October 1998 the first-instance court ordered an expert examination in order to calculate the revenues received by the company and the payments due to the applicant company. On the same day the court suspended proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. By a ruling of 6 November 1998 and a letter of 5 February 1999 the court amended the questions put before the experts and added a new question. The expert report was submitted to the court in December 1999. The institution which performed the examination did not respond to all the questions put by the court due to lack of competence. 8.  On 16 December 1999 the first-instance court ordered a new expert examination to be held by another institution. The court put the same questions. By the same ruling the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. The expert report was submitted to the court in May 2000. 9.  Between July 1998 and 11 September 2000 the first-instance court scheduled three hearings. 10.  On 11 September 2000 the first-instance court allowed the applicant company’s claims in part. 11.  On 12 December 2000 the president of the first-instance court granted the company’s request to review the judgment of 11 September 2000 under the supervisory review procedure. The judgment was quashed, in particular because the first-instance court had failed to comply with procedural requirements prescribed by law while ordering the expert examination. The case was remitted for fresh consideration to the same court. On 16 May 2001 the Higher Commercial Court upheld the ruling of 12 September 2000. 12.  On 5 June 2002 the court ordered the expert examination to be held. The proceedings were suspended. The report was submitted to the court in February 2003. 13.  In August 2003 the company lodged a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the licence contract was null and void. 14.  Between 12 December 2000 and 10 October 2003 the court scheduled some thirteen hearings. 15.  On 10 October 2003 the first-instance court found against the applicant company. On 16 December 2003 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal (“the court of appeal”) upheld this decision. 16.  On 6 April 2004 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 17.  Between April and November 2004 the first-instance court scheduled some six hearings. 18.  On 16 November 2004 the first-instance court found against the applicant company. On 1 March 2005 the court of appeal upheld this decision. 19.  On 7 June and 11 August 2005 respectively the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court dismissed cassation appeals by the applicant company. 20.  The parties did not provide this Court with precise information about the number of hearings actually held. According to the information provided by the Government, the hearings were adjourned on two occasions at the applicant company’s request.