5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Willstät, Germany. 6.  The applicant was a minority shareholder in Sokolovská uhelná, a.s. (“the company”), a joint-stock company incorporated under Czech law. 7.  On 4 May 2005 the general meeting of the company adopted, by a vote of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder. 8.  On 25 June 2005 the applicant lodged with the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to applicable law, bilateral investment treaties and her property rights. She also asserted that the law on which the resolution had been based was itself unconstitutional. At the same time, she informed the court administering the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík) about her action and asked it not to allow the entry in the register of the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder until the legality of the resolution had been decided by the Regional Court. These set-aside proceedings are still pending. 9.  The applicant received cash compensation based on the value of her shares as at 31 December 2001. The amount of compensation was based on an evaluation made by an expert appointed by a court on the proposal of the main shareholder. 10.  On 30 June 2005 the court in charge of the Companies Register approved the registration of the transfer and the deletion of the company from the Companies Register. No hearing was held prior to that decision, which was not served on the applicant as she did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. 11.  On 11 July 2005 the Prague High Court (vrchní soud) rejected the applicant's appeal contesting the above-mentioned decision. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, she was not entitled to appeal their outcome. 12.  On 11 May 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal, in which she claimed an impairment of her right to a fair trial and the right to property in relation to the companies register proceedings on the basis that (i) she had not been allowed to be a party to those proceedings as a result of the application of Article 220h(4) of the Commercial Code and (ii) that this had created an irreversible situation. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the Commercial Code had not impaired her right of access to court because, apart from the companies register proceedings, there were other proceedings available to the applicant in which she could have asserted her rights. It further held that the applicant's claims that such other proceedings would not guarantee adequate protection of her rights could not be reviewed, because the present appeal had been directed only against the decisions in the companies register proceedings.