4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Novomoskovsk. In the early nineties the applicant worked in Russia, however, since 1992 she had a Ukrainian citizenship stamp in her U.S.S.R. passport, which she exchanged for a Ukrainian passport in 1999. 5.  In 1995 the applicant left Russia, moved into her Novomoskovsk house purchased in 1987, and sought to privatize an adjacent plot of land. In September 1996, having received a privatization certificate, she found out that part of the plot she considered to be entitled to, had been privatized by her neighbour, Mrs N.P. 6.  On 10 February 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Mrs N.P., seeking partial annulment of her privatization documents. 7.  On 19 March 1998 the Novomoskovsk Court (Новомосковський міський суд Дніпропетровської області) dismissed her claims as lodged outside the applicable statute of limitation. The applicant appealed. 8.  On 23 April 1998 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”; Дніпропетровський обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the Novomoskovsk Court had insufficiently analysed the circumstances concerning the application of the statute of limitation. It further instructed the court to examine particular documentary and other evidence and to summon the City Council's Executive Committee (Виконавчий комітет Новомосковської міської ради), which had issued the privatization documents. 9.  In October 1998 Mrs N.P. lodged a counter-claim, seeking to annul the applicant's privatization certificate. She maintained that the applicant had not received Ukrainian citizenship until 1999 and so, under the applicable law, had not been entitled to privatize land before that time. 10.  On 18 January 2001 the Novomoskovsk Court accepted Mrs N.P.'s argument, having dismissed all of the applicant's claims and having allowed all those of Mrs N.P. The applicant appealed. 11.  On 5 March 2001 the Regional Court quashed this judgment. It found that the Novomoskovsk Court had misinterpreted applicable substantive law and breached a number of procedural requirements. Particularly, it had failed to examine a number of relevant documents and witnesses, as well as to substantiate the dismissal of the applicant's claims against Mrs N.P. 12.  On 4 January and 12 November 2003 the applicant amended her claims. 13.  On 15 July 2004 the Novomoskovsk Court partly allowed both parties' claims. In particular, it ordered the Executive Committee to change the planning scheme and record each party's ownership over the land, which she actually used. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court quashed this judgment, having found that the Novomoskovsk Court had exceeded its procedural authority in deciding to design a planning scheme, which power was vested in the municipal authorities. Furthermore, the court still had failed to examine certain of the documents of relevance to the proceedings. The applicant appealed in cassation. 15.  As of June 2006 the proceedings were pending before the cassation court. 16.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some 33 hearings. Most of them were scheduled with intervals ranging from several weeks to five months. On two occasions the intervals between the hearings exceeded six and nine months respectively (28 January 1999 – 12 August 1999 and 3 April 2002 – 21 January 2003). Thirteen hearings were adjourned on account of the absences of municipal authorities summoned into the proceedings. Twice the hearings were adjourned on account of the applicant's failure to appear.