4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Orenburg. 5.  On 3 October 2000 the applicant filed a suit with the justice of peace of judicial circuit no. 7 of the Leninskiy District of Orenburg against a municipal enterprise. She alleged that certain actions of the respondent had led to grave damage to her privately owned house and claimed that the respondent should repair it or provide equivalent monetary compensation, fix construction flaws and pay her compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 6.  On 5 October 2000 the justice of peace left the claim without consideration for lack of competence. 7.  On 10 October 2000 the justice of peace of the judicial circuit no. 6 also left the claim without consideration for the same reason. 8.  On 31 October 2000 the claim was admitted by the justice of peace of the judicial circuit no. 1 of the Tsentralnyy District of Orenburg. 9.  On 20 December 2000 the hearing was adjourned due to the respondent's representative's failure to appear. 10.  On 18 January 2001 the court granted the applicant's motion to identify a co-respondent and adjourned the hearing. 11.  On 19 July 2001 the court ordered a technical examination, which lasted until 25 March 2002. Two questions were put to the experts. 12.  On 19 April 2002 the case was transferred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Orenburg (“the District Court”) as falling within the latter's competence. 13.  On an unspecified date the applicant altered her claims. 14.  On 10 June 2002 the hearing was adjourned to 26 June 2002 as the applicant's counsel failed to appear. 15.  On 22 August 2002 the District Court disallowed the applicant's claims. The judgment was overturned on appeal by a decision of the Orenburg Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 10 October 2002, for erroneous application of the substantive law. The case was remitted to the first instance for fresh examination. 16.  On 2 December 2002 the hearing was adjourned at both parties' requests. 17.  Two following hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request due to her counsel's failure to appear and to enable her to secure additional evidence. 18.  On 20 January 2003 the District Court ordered a technical examination. Eleven questions were put to the experts. 19.  On 10 February 2003 head of the State forensic examinations bureau informed the court that the examination would start in April once the snow melted. 20.  On 9 July 2003 the same official informed the court that the examination was delayed because it was necessary to carry out an additional survey and to invite another expert. 21.  On 20 October 2003 the District Court requested information on the date of completion of the examination. In their reply the forensic examinations bureau referred to a heavy workload. 22.  The technical examination was completed on 9 December 2003, and on 30 January 2004 the District Court resumed the proceedings. 23.  Two following hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request to enable her to secure additional evidence and specify her claims. 24.  On 2 March 2004 the court granted the applicant's motion for a new technical examination, which lasted until 20 March 2004. The experts had to answer one question. 25.  On 5 April 2004 the District Court resumed the proceedings. The court adjourned two following hearings to enable the applicant to specify her claims and for a new respondent to familiarise themselves with the claims. 26.  On 11 June 2004 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. However, the judgment was set aside by the Regional Court on 21 September 2004 for erroneous application of the substantive law. The case was ordered for re-examination. 27.  On 12 November 2004 the District Court accepted alterations to the applicant's claims and, four days later, ordered a technical examination. Thirty-six questions were put to the experts. The decision to order the new examination was upheld by the Regional Court on 22 March 2005 on the applicant's appeal. 28.  On 18 April 2005 the case was sent to the experts, followed by a contract for execution of services on 13 July 2005 and by payment arrangements on 12 October 2005. 29.  On 13 January, 1 March and 31 May 2006 the District Court inquired with the forensic examinations bureau about the results of the examination. It is unclear whether it received any reply. 30.  On 8 August 2006 the applicant complained to the president of the District Court of unreasonably long consideration of the case. The parties did not submit any information regarding a reply to this complaint. 31.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court received the examination results and resumed the proceedings. 32.  Between 30 August 2006 and 14 March 2007 nine hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request for various reasons, mainly to summon witnesses and secure additional evidence, as well as to enable the respondents to familiarise themselves with the amended claims. 33.  On 19 March 2007 the District Court disallowed the claim. On 6 June 2007 the Regional Court overturned the judgment on appeal for erroneous application of the substantive law and required a new hearing. 34.  On 8 August 2007 the District Court granted the applicant's motion for a new technical examination and a forensic medical examination. 35.  On 23 October 2007 at the applicant's request the District Court commissioned the medical examination to a different agency. 36.  On 22 November 2007 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part ordering the town administration to build a drainage system in the vicinity of the applicant's house, and dismissed the other claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 6 February 2008. 37.  On 27 May 2008 the bailiff service initiated the enforcement proceedings. Four months later they were terminated as the court judgment had been deemed executed. 38.  On 21 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia, acting upon the applicant's request for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 22 November 2007 and the decision of 6 February 2008 in the part concerning dismissal of the applicant's claim for compensation of pecuniary damage. The case was remitted in the relevant part to the first instance for fresh consideration. 39.  On 18 December 2008 the District Court stayed the proceedings until the applicant's recovery from illness. 40.  On 19 December 2008 head of the regional bailiff office quashed the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings after establishing that the court judgment had not been properly enforced. The enforcement proceedings were resumed. 41.  On 11 January 2009 the District Court clarified its judgment of 22 November 2007 at the bailiff's request. 42.  On 2 February 2009 the court proceedings were resumed. 43.  On 12 March 2009 the District Court ordered a new technical examination at the applicant's request. 44.  On 5, 7 and 14 May 2009 the District Court reminded the applicant to allow the experts access to the examined objects. However, the applicant failed to do so. 45.  On 18 May 2009 the court dismissed the applicant's request for extension of the time-limit for appeal of the decision to order the new technical examination. It is not clear from the parties' submissions when this examination was completed. 46.  On 13 November 2009 the District Court granted the applicant's claim for pecuniary compensation in part, awarding her 67,555 roubles to be paid by the town administration. In particular, the court repeatedly referred to expert conclusions from different years which established that the condition of the applicant's house was 'unacceptable' and 'dangerous for human habitation'. 47.  On 16 December 2009 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 48.  The judgment of 22 November 2007 has not been enforced to date.