4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kharkiv. 5.  On 11 April 2000 the Kyiv District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant, along with two other persons, on suspicion of tax evasion and forgery in their capacity of a private company’s officials. 6.  On 24 April 2000 the applicant was indicted. 7.  Between 30 May 2000 and 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) considered the case. 8.  According to the information provided by the Government, in the course of proceedings the hearings were adjourned twelve times because the presiding judge was busy with another case and seven times at the request of the other co-defendants’ lawyers. In addition, there were five adjournments as the applicant or her lawyer was absent. Finally, hearings did not take place four times because the prosecutor was absent and three times owing to the absence of the witnesses. According to the applicant, however, the judge failed to duly notify the parties of the scheduled hearings on many occasions. Some of the adjournments, according to her, were caused by the judge’s inability to ensure the audio-recording of hearings requested by the applicant. 9.  Meanwhile, the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the higher-level courts about the length of the proceedings. As indicated in the reply of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal to one of her complaints, audio-recording equipment was available only in the appellate court and the first-instance court had therefore to adjust the schedule of hearings accordingly. 10.  On 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy Court, at the prosecutor’s petition and in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer, terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred. 11.  On 8 July 2004 this ruling became final.