4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Chelyabinsk. 5.  On 30 September 1996 the applicant sued Chelyabinsk municipal hospital No. 9 (Городская клиническая больница № 9) seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by medical malpractice. In particular, the applicant submitted that she had become disabled as a result of a poorly performed leg surgery. 6.  On 6 June 1997 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk (“the District Court”) ordered a medical examination and stayed the proceedings. 7.  On 28 May 1998 the District Court received a letter from head of the State regional forensic examinations bureau containing a request to provide a copy of the court’s decision and to obtain certain medical documents. The court was also informed that it was necessary to make an advance payment for the examination. 8.  On 19 June 1998 the District Court demanded the case file back from the forensic examinations bureau. 9.  Upon receiving the case file, on 21 October 1998 the District Court scheduled a hearing to decide whether it was necessary to conduct a medical examination and to allocate the expenses. 10.  On 23 February 1999 the case file was sent back to the forensic examinations bureau. 11.  In April and June 1999 the court sent inquiries to the State health care department and to the municipal hospital in an effort to obtain the documents required for the medical examination. 12.  On 27 December 1999 the remaining documents were sent to the forensic examinations bureau. 13.  On 16 February 2000 head of the forensic examinations bureau decided to return the case file to the court as, in his opinion, the court’s order for a medical examination was addressed to the State health care department. 14.  On 10 April 2000 the District Court again sent the case file to the forensic examinations bureau with explanations. 15.  On 27 September 2000, 15 January, 30 July and 21 August 2001 the District Court inquired with the forensic examinations bureau about the reasons of the delay in carrying out the examination. 16.  On 15 August 2001 the forensic examinations bureau informed the court of the cost of the pending examination. 17.  On 24 August 2001 the court invited the applicant to make the payment but she refused. 18.  On 7 September 2001, following the applicant’s complaint of the delays in her proceedings to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), the judge in charge of the applicant’s case informed her in a letter about the reasons of the delays. The Court is not in possession of this document. 19.  Following the respondent’s refusal to pay for the medical examination, on 2 October 2001 the District Court demanded the case file back from the forensic examinations bureau. 20.  On 29 October 2001 the applicant amended her claims. The court adjourned the hearing and invited the applicant’s surgeon as a third party to the proceedings. 21.  By a judgment of 13 November 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 11 February 2002. 22.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant requested that the region’s prosecutor lodge an extraordinary appeal for supervisory review of the court decisions adopted in her case. 23.  The prosecutor’s appeal was granted, and on 15 May 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 November 2001 and the appeal decision of 11 February 2002 by way of supervisory review, and remitted the case to the first instance for fresh consideration. The court held that a medical examination had been necessary to resolve the dispute and that the applicant had not been obliged by law to bear its costs. In addition, the Presidium issued a special statement in which it reprimanded acting president of the District Court for the breach of procedural time-limits for preparation and examination of the case. 24.  By a decision of 15 August 2002 the District Court again commissioned a medical examination, allocating the costs to the respondent. The examination was held between 5 and 18 February 2003, and on 3 April 2003 the case file together with the experts’ report arrived to the court. 25.  The hearing of 29 April 2003 was adjourned to 12 May 2003 to give the applicant time to familiarise herself with the experts’ report. 26.  By a judgment of 12 May 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 28 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. 27.  On 28 October 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s application for supervisory review of the above decisions.