4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Nikopol, the Dnipropetrovsk Region. 5.  On 22 December 1987 the Nikopol Court found the applicant guilty of violating road traffic rules and sentenced her to a fine and withdrawal of her driving licence for three years. It allowed the civil claim of the victim R. and obliged the applicant to pay him a certain amount in compensation. 6.  On 16 February 1988 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 December 1987 as regards a part of R.’s claim for compensation, which did not concern the damaged parts of his car (see paragraph 7 below). It found that that part of the claim could be determined within the framework of civil proceedings. The remainder of the judgment of 22 December 1987 was upheld. 7.  In July 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nikopol Court for recovery of property from R. She sought recovery of the parts of the R.’s car (the damaged car body) which had been replaced by new ones at her expense. 8.  Between July 1990 and September 1997 the case was re-examined on four occasions. 9.  On 2 September 1997 the Nikopol Court ordered R. to pay the applicant 1,260.85 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH) in compensation for the value of the property claimed and court expenses. 10.  In the course of the proceedings the car maintenance service joined the case as a co-respondent. 11.  On 20 October 1997 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 September 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 12.  On 7 December 1999 the Nikopol Court ordered an expert examination in the case. 13.  On 12 June 2000 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims against R. On 17 July 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 June 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 14.  On 28 January 2003 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims against R. 15.  On 22 May 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 January 2003 and discontinued proceedings in the case. It found that the issue of compensation for damage caused to the vehicle had been determined in the course of the criminal proceedings and that the applicant should have raised the claim within those proceedings. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 22 May 2003. 16.  In the course of the civil proceedings the applicant once requested the court to postpone a hearing. She also lodged requests for an expert examination, for experts to be summoned and for certain documents to be joined to the case. The respondent in the applicant’s case failed to appear before the court on twelve occasions.