4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  Between 1989 and 2001 the applicant initiated several sets of civil proceedings. 6.  By judgment of 17 January 1989, the Vyborg Town Court ordered the applicant’s former husband to pay alimony. A writ of execution was issued. 7.  In August 2000 the bailiff service notified the applicant that the writ had been lost and advised her to obtain a new one. 8.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant brought proceedings in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg against her husband R. seeking judicial recognition of her and her children’s right to use a room in a certain flat. The case was assigned to judge K. 9.  The applicant submitted that hearings had been scheduled for 27 February 2000, which fell on a weekend, and then for an unspecified date in March 2000 when the respondent had failed to appear. 10.  The next hearing scheduled for 19 April 2000 did not take place due to the parties’ default in appearance. The summons sent to the respondent whose address had been indicated by the applicant in her statement of claim had returned to the court upon expiry of the time-limit for its storage at the post office. 11.  The hearing of 16 May 2000 did not take place due to the respondent’s failure to appear. The summons returned to the court for the same reason as before. 12.  The hearing of 19 September 2000 did not take place as the judge was on vacation. On account of judge K.’s heavy workload, the case was transferred to the newly appointed judge Ch. 13.  The next hearing scheduled for 15 November 2000 was adjourned at the applicant’s request to give her time to specify her claims and obtain legal assistance. On the same date the court granted her motion for an injunction order. 14.  At the hearing of 24 January 2001 the applicant supplemented her claims by asking the court to declare unlawful an exchange of the contested room for a house carried out by R. Following involvement of a third party P., the hearing was adjourned, the parties were summoned to a new date, and the court sent an inquiry to some State bodies for evidence. 15.  The respondent and the third party did not appear at the next hearing of 17 April 2001. The summons sent to P. returned to the court upon expiry of the time-limit for its storage at the post office. The hearing was adjourned. To ensure the correct address of the summonses, the court suggested that P. be summoned by the housing authorities of the respective city district, and R. by the town council of the village where he resided. 16.  At the next hearing of 1 August 2001 the applicant supplemented her claims seeking to declare all of the transactions with the room unlawful. Three other individuals who had been parties to these transactions were involved by the court as co-respondents. On the same day the court stayed the proceedings pending outcome of another dispute at the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg which involved the applicant’s claim for annulment of her marriage to R. The applicant did not challenge this decision. 17.  The proceedings were resumed on 12 May 2003, three months after the Frunzenskiy District Court gave a judgment. The next hearing was scheduled for 3 February 2004; however it had to be postponed to 15 September 2004 following the request of the applicant and one of the respondents, as well as the other parties’ default in appearance. In response to the applicant’s complaint of lengthy proceedings, on 21 August 2003 the president of the St Petersburg City Court acknowledged that the workload in the District Court had considerably exceeded the maximum level, in particular due to the shortage of judges. 18.  On 15 September 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The reasoned judgment was submitted to the court’s registry on 13 May 2005. On 20 July 2005 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 19.  On 12 July 2001 the applicant brought proceedings in the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg for annulment of her marriage to R. 20.  On 4 April 2002 the judge in charge of her case decided to prepare the case for examination and required certain evidence from a State body. A hearing was scheduled for 7 October 2002. However, it did not take place due to the judge’s illness. At the next hearing of 19 February 2003 the court granted the applicant’s claim. 21.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant complained to the Higher Judicial Qualifications Board of the District Court’s procrastination in dealing with her case. As a result of an internal investigation, on 26 November 2004 the judge who had sat in the applicant’s case was dismissed. 22.  In April 2001 the applicant brought proceedings in the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg for alimony arrears and sought to deprive her former husband of his parental rights. On 24 April 2002 the District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of another court. On 7 August 2002 the St Petersburg City Court set aside this decision. By judgment of 19 February 2003, the District Court granted the applicant’s claims.