4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Letychivka, Cherkasy region. 5.  In March 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Monastyryshche Court against her former employer, the Monastyryshche Department of Land Resources, seeking reinstatement as an employee and recovery of salary arrears. In the proceedings, the applicant was represented by a lawyer. 6.  On 23 May 2005 the court allowed the applicant's claims in full. 7.  The defendant party appealed against that judgment. The applicant submitted comments on the appeal. 8.  At a preliminary hearing on 1 July 2005 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal issued a ruling scheduling a hearing on the merits of the appeal for 17 August 2005. 9.  According to the Government, a copy of the ruling of 1 July 2005 was delivered to the applicant in person on 15 July 2005. The Government submitted a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt completed and signed by a postman and a copy of a report from the Cherkasy Post Office, indicating that the applicant had received a copy of the ruling in person. In that report the post office mentioned that the register of delivered mail containing the applicant's signature in that connection had been destroyed and that a copy of it was not available. 10.  The applicant stated that neither she nor her lawyer had been informed of the hearing on appeal in advance. According to her, the documents submitted by the Government could not prove that she had received a copy of the ruling of 1 July 2005, as the acknowledgment of receipt did not bear the post mark of Post Office No. 16 of Cherkasy, which normally delivered mail to her place of residence. 11.  From 10 to 29 August 2005 the applicant underwent treatment at the Monastyryshche Central Hospital. 12.  On 17 August 2005 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal heard the case in the absence of the applicant and her lawyer. It found that the applicant's dismissal had been lawful, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and rejected the applicant's claims in full. According to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it could be appealed against in cassation to the Supreme Court within one month. 13.  According to the applicant, on 7 September 2005 her lawyer learned that the Court of Appeal had decided on the case on 17 August 2005. On the same day he lodged with the Monastyryshche Court a request for a copy of the decision on appeal. 14.  On 5  October 2005 the lawyer received a copy of the decision of 17 August 2005. 15.  At the applicant's request, a copy of that decision was also provided to her by the Monastyryshche Court on 6 October 2005. 16.  On 3 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, challenging the factual findings and application of law by the Court of Appeal. The applicant also requested the Supreme Court to renew the time-limit for lodging her appeal in cassation, stating that she had not been informed of the decision of 17 August 2005 in due time. 17.  On 15 November 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as lodged out of time, stating, without any further explanation, that the ground on which the applicant had relied in requesting the renewal of the impugned time-limit was not sufficient to justify the requested course of action.