5.  The applicant, an arts teacher, was born in 1946 and lives in Munich. 6.  On 19 November 1996 she underwent elective surgery on her right eye. Subsequently, her vision deteriorated, causing her, in 2003, to become incapable of working. 7.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant lodged a claim of medical malpractice against the hospital and three of its physicians with the Munich I Regional Court. Prior to the first hearing on 26 October 1998 the court ordered the applicant to file medical records and a declaration releasing her physicians from their medical confidentiality. In November 1998 the applicant withdrew her action against two of the defendants, and the Regional Court requested medical records from the physicians. On 30 December 1998 the court ordered the applicant to file additional medical records, which were partly filed in March 1999. On 20 April 1999 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that no more records existed. 8.  On 3 December 1999, following another hearing on 20 October 1999 the Regional Court ordered an expert report from S. which he submitted on 19 April 2000. On 8 May 2000 the date of the next oral hearing was fixed for 13 September 2000. In view of the parties’ comments on the expert opinion, this hearing was cancelled on 13 July 2000, and S. was asked to supplement his report; he produced the supplement on 13 October 2000. 9.  On 9 April and 30 August 2001, following oral hearings on 31 January and 13 August 2001, the Regional Court ordered further supplements from S. which were submitted on 18 June and on 17 October 2001. On 17 December 2001 the applicant increased her claim for pecuniary damage and was ordered to make a further advance payment of court fees. 10.  On 29 January 2002 the Regional Court cancelled the hearing set for 6 February 2002 because payment of the further court fees could not be confirmed. On 12 June 2002 the applicant informed the court that her insurance had already paid the additional court fees in January; actual confirmation of the payment was only made on 23 August 2002. On 9 December 2002, after the expert had not replied to the court’s letters from August 2002, the Regional Court informed the parties that he could not be located. 11.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant increased her pecuniary damage claim. On 8 April 2003 an oral hearing set for 16 April 2003 was cancelled. On 3 July 2003 the Regional Court ordered a new expert report from O. since S., who had meanwhile been traced, was not available for a hearing. On 31 July 2003 the applicant again increased her pecuniary damage claim. After comments on the claim extension by the defendants the court on 8 September commissioned O. On 7 November 2003 he informed the court that he was unable to accept the assignment but recommended his colleague, K. On 5 December 2003 the applicant objected to the appointment of K. 12.  On 1 April 2004 O. returned the files to the court. On 20 April 2004 G. was appointed as expert. He submitted his report on 6 December 2004 after a reminder of the court dated 15 November 2004. 13.  On 4 February 2005, after having received comments from the parties, the Regional Court ordered a supplement to the report, which G. submitted on 28 February 2005. An oral hearing scheduled for 25 May 2005 was cancelled on 15 April 2005 upon both parties’ request; a new date was set for 16 November 2005. On 21 September 2005 G., who could not come to a hearing due to health problems, submitted written answers to further questions of the applicant. On 16 November 2005 the oral hearing was held. On 31 December 2005 the applicant increased her pecuniary damage claim. 14.  On 6 April 2006 the Regional Court informed the parties that it intended to have the applicant examined. On 14 April 2006 G. died. On 7 June 2006 the court designated L. to assess the applicant’s current medical status. In September 2006 the court was advised that one and the same expert should examine the applicant and also submit a follow-up to G’s opinion. On 12 October 2006 Sp. was appointed after the applicant had objected to the appointment of L. On 25 October 2006, at the defendants’ request, the oral hearing, which had been set for 5 February 2007, was rescheduled for 29 January 2007. On 13 November 2006 the files were forwarded to Sp. 15.  On 23 January 2007 the court, which had not yet received the expert report, cancelled the hearing set for 29 January 2007. On 29 January 2007 Sp. submitted her report and on 19 March 2007 she was heard in an oral hearing. In April and July 2007 the Regional Court proposed a settlement which the parties did not accept. On 25 July 2007 it then handed down a partial and a full judgment on the basis of the cause of action (Teil‑und Grundurteil). 16.  On 11 September 2007 the defendants appealed the judgment. On 12 October 2007 they submitted the reasoning of the appeal. On 7 December 2007 the Court of Appeal scheduled an oral hearing for 21 February 2008. On 24 January 2008 the applicant lodged a cross-appeal (Anschlussberufung). On 29 May 2008 the appeals were dismissed. 17.  On 3 July 2008 the defendant lodged a complaint against the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant leave to appeal. On 6 October 2008 the grounds for the complaint were lodged. On 5 January 2009 the applicant submitted a response. On 21 January 2009 the Federal Court of Justice quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal. 18.  On 23 February 2009 the files were returned to the Court of Appeal which on 25 March 2009 proposed a settlement and advised the parties that otherwise a new expert needed to be appointed. On 7 May 2009 the defendants refused the settlement. On 28 May 2009 the Court of Appeal appointed K. as the new expert. On 17 June 2009 the applicant reiterated her objection from 2003 to the appointment of K. On 25 June 2009 the Court of Appeal appointed A., who on 14 July 2009 informed the court that he was not be able to render the expert opinion. On 5 August 2009 the Court of Appeal appointed G., who on 7 September 2009 also informed the court that he was not available. On 3 November 2009 R. was appointed. 19.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant pressed criminal charges against the defendants alleging procedural fraud (Prozessbetrug). On 9 October 2006 the Public Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged receipt of the complaint. On 8 May 2009 the applicant renewed her complaint against the defendants.