4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budaörs. 5.  In 1976 the applicant married Mr J.V. Their daughters were born in 1978 and 1981. 6.  In March 1993 the applicant filed for divorce before the Budaörs District Court. She also sought custody of the couple’s children and the regulation of related matters. 7.  On 8 August 1994 an expert submitted her opinion on the children’s relationship with the parents. 8.  On 27 September 1994 the District Court pronounced the couple’s divorce, granted custody of the children to the mother, ordered the respondent to pay maintenance, regulated his access rights and ordered that the couple should share the use of the flat, which was jointly owned. It considered that the respondent’s alcoholism and its negative effect on the children did not justify the grant of the exclusive use of the flat to the mother and the children.
Both parties appealed. The applicant claimed exclusive use of the flat. 9.  On 7 February 1995 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the parties’ appeal, holding that the first-instance decision had been given in accordance with the law. 10.  On 23 February 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budaörs District Court for the division of the matrimonial property. 11.  The court held hearings on 19 May and 11 July 1995. On 20 July 1995 it appointed an expert architect. Further hearings took place 1 November and 4 December 1995, 1 February and 11 March 1996. 12.  On 12 March 1996 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the court to grant priority to her case. 13.  The District Court held hearings on 13 June, 1 October and 12 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 another expert was appointed. 14.  A further hearing took place on 25 June 1997. A third expert was appointed on 5 September 1997. 15.  On 1 October, 25 November and 9 December 1997, 13 February and 31 March 1998, the court held additional hearings. On that date it appointed an expert committee to reconcile the existing expert opinions. After having been urged to do so on 3 May 1999, the latter submitted its opinion on 1 June 2000. 16.  Meanwhile, on 23 September 1998 and 18 February 2000, the applicant again unsuccessfully requested that priority be granted to her case. 17.  On 30 June and 12 July 2000 the applicant’s motion for bias and her complaint against the committee’s opinion were rejected. 18.  On 27 October 2000 the District Court delivered its judgment and divided the matrimonial property between the parties, ordering the applicant to pay 2,179,500 Hungarian forints to the respondent as compensation for his share of the flat which he had to leave. 19.  On 15 May 2001 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the parties’ appeals.