4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sochi. 5.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicant lodged an action against her neighbour seeking demolition of an unlawfully constructed accessory building to their joint house. 6.  The neighbour lodged a separate action, seeking division of the joint land plot. 7.  On 26 October 1994 the Adler Town Court (“the Town Court”) granted the neighbour’s action. That judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 7 February 1995. 8.  On 10 February 1995 the Town Court gave a judgment in the case concerning the applicant’s action, granting it in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 9.  In April 1995 the applicant, relying on the judgment of 10 February 1995, lodged an application for review of the judgment of 26 October 1994 on account of the discovery of new circumstances. 10.  On 1 June 1995 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) granted the application, quashed the judgments of 26 October 1994 and 7 and 10 February 1995 and authorised a re-examination of the applicant’s and the neighbour’s actions in joint proceedings. 11.  On 13 December 1995 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 12.  On 16 January 1997 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court, acting as a supervisory-review instance, quashed the judgment of 13 December 1995 in the part concerning the registration of the accessory building and sent that issue for fresh examination. 13.  On 9 June 1997 judge S., to whom the case had been assigned, ordered to conduct two expert examinations, one of the house and another of the land plot. 14.  On 28 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Town Court about the experts’ failure to submit reports. It appears that the expert report on the land was prepared on 1 October 1998 and sent to the trial court before 15 December 1998. According to the Government the delay in the conduct of the expert examination had been caused by the parties’ failure to pay the expert’s fees. 15.  The hearing of 19 November 1998 was adjourned at the applicant’s request owing to her illness. 16.  On 15 December 1998 the Town Court adjourned the hearing on account of the experts’ failure to submit another report on the house. 17.  The hearing of 19 January 1999 was adjourned at the expert’s request who noted that the examination had been pending due to the parties’ failure to pay the fees. The following two hearings were adjourned because the expert examination was still pending as the expert was ill. The expert report was submitted on 24 March 1999. 18.  The next hearing, scheduled for 25 March 1999, was postponed until 13 April 1999 owing to the respondent’s failure to appear. 19.  The hearing of 13 April 1999 was postponed until 6 October 1999 in order for additional evidence to be collected. 20.  On 3 November 1999 the court granted the applicant’s request for the suspension of the proceedings pending the outcome of her supervisory-review complaint against the decision of 13 December 1995. It appears that the proceedings were resumed on 12 April 2001. 21.  The hearing of 12 April 2001 was adjourned until 5 May 2001. 22.  On 5 May 2001 the Town Court left the applicant’s case without examination owing to his failure to appear in court. 23.  On 11 February 2002 the court resumed the proceedings at the applicant’s request. 24.  The hearing scheduled for 12 February 2002 was adjourned at the applicant’s request. 25.  On 29 March 2002 the court authorised an additional technical examination, which was completed on 31 March 2003. 26.  The next three hearings were postponed owing to either the applicant’s or the respondent’s failure to appear. 27.  On 6 August 2003 the court granted the applicant’s request for an additional expert examination, which was completed on 1 October 2003. Between October 2003 and March 2004 the court held several hearings. 28.  On 23 March 2004 the Adler Town Court accepted the applicant’s claims, finding that the building’s registration had been unlawful. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 11 May 2004 by the Krasnodar Regional Court. The case was sent for fresh examination to the Town Court. 29.  On 21 December 2004 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s action in full. 30.  On 10 February 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.