4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Banská Bystrica. 5.  On 20 February 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Banská Bystrica District Court. She claimed that a joint ownership be terminated in respect of several plots of land and a house. 6.  On 6 April 1992 the court summoned the applicant’s advocate and asked him to inform the court whether the applicant maintained her claim. 7.  On 18 June 1992 the court held a hearing where it heard both parties and invited them to submit further evidence. The defendant lodged a counterclaim and the court requested him to specify it. 8.  On 13 July 1992 and on 2 September 1992 the court asked the State Notary in Banská Bystrica to submit case files concerning three sets of inheritance proceedings in which the applicant had been involved. 9.  On 30 November 1992 the applicant amended her action and requested that another person should be joined as a defendant in the case. 10.  The court held hearings on 17 December 1992 and on 19 January 1993 respectively. The latter hearing was adjourned as expert examination had to be taken. On 4 April 1993 the court invited the applicant to submit a geometric plan of the relevant plots. 11.  In a letter of 21 April 1993, the applicant informed the court that she had brought a criminal complaint against a notary public and requested that the District Court’s proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. On 21 September 1993 she withdrew her request. 12.  On 27 September 1993 the District Court urged the applicant to submit the geometric plan. The applicant did so on 25 April 1994. 13.  On 17 May 1994 the applicant amended her action. At a hearing held on 25 October 1994, the court invited her to specify the amended action. On 1 June 1995 the applicant submitted an additional claim challenging the validity of a purchase contract concerning the property in question which had been concluded in 1972. 14.  On 13 November 1995 the court held a hearing where it accepted the amendment of the applicant’s action. A further hearing scheduled for 27 November 1995 was adjourned due to the absence of a witness. 15.  On 13 December 1995 the District Court delivered an interim judgment declaring the purchase contract of 1972 void. The defendant appealed on 5 March 1996. 16.  On 23 April 1996 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the interim judgment. 17.  The District Court held hearings on 29 May 1996 and on 16 July 1996 respectively. The defendant requested that the latter hearing should be adjourned as he intended to appoint a new legal representative. The court granted the defendant’s request and invited him to submit a power of attorney within 20 days. 18.  On 2 September 1996 and on 15 October 1996 respectively the court urged the defendant to submit the power of attorney. On 14 January 1997 the defendant submitted the power of attorney together with his comments on the applicant’s action. 19.  The court held a hearing on 20 February 1997. On 27 February 1997 the applicant submitted comments on the defendant’s arguments presented at the hearing of 20 February 1997. Subsequently the court invited the defendant to comment on the applicant’s submissions and on the geometric plan submitted by her on 25 April 1994. 20.  On 30 April 1997 the court urged the defendant to submit his comments. The defendant did so on 23 May 1997. Following the court’s request of 30 September 1997 to comment on the defendant’s submissions, the applicant informed the court, by a letter of 20 October 1997, that she maintained her claim. 21.  On 17 March 1999 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 6 April 1999. At the latter date the case was adjourned as the court decided to visit the site. On 20 April 1999 the applicant submitted further evidence. 22.  On 14 September 1999 the court inspected the site. 23.  On 3 April 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The District Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 7 June 2001. Subsequently she appealed. 24.  On 9 July 2001 the applicant paid a court fee for her appeal. The case file was transferred to the court of appeal on 9 August 2001. 25.  Following a hearing held on 19 September 2001, the Regional Court inspected the site in the presence of both parties on 28 September 2001. 26.  On 3 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 3 April 2000. The District Court’s judgment became final and binding on 23 November 2001. 27.  On 2 September 1999 the applicant claimed before the Banská Bystrica District Court a determination of the joint ownership of real property and its dissolution, as well as compensation. 28.  On 18 December 2002 the Banská Bystrica District Court dismissed the action. 29.  On 4 September 2003 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. Both courts found, with reference to an inheritance decision of 1969, that the property in question had passed into the exclusive ownership of a different person. The Regional Court considered irrelevant the applicant’s argument that her date of birth and personal registration number had been incorrectly mentioned in the relevant documents while the inheritance proceedings had been pending as the State Notary had had no doubt about the correct identification of the applicant and her relation to the testator. 30.  In 1940 the house in which the applicant and her parents lived burned down and the family documents including the applicant’s birth certificate were destroyed. The applicant indicated 6 July 1930 as her date of birth in accordance with her mother’s statement. 31.  In 1951 the local authority in Tajov delivered a new birth certificate to the applicant indicating that the applicant had been born on 8 July 1930. 32.  On 5 March 1997 the District Office in Banská Bystrica delivered a new birth certificate to the applicant according to which she had been born on 6 July 1930.