4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Munich. 5.  On 8 November 1993 the applicant brought an action against her brother before the Buda Central District Court claiming her statutory share of the inheritance of her deceased mother’s estate. 6.  On 6 May 1994 the District Court held a hearing. On 20 September 1994 a further hearing took place, which lasted 30 minutes. The defendant failed to appear on both occasions. On the latter date, the defendant’s counsel requested that the applicant’s claim be rejected as it had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit. 7.  On 18 November 1994 the District Court held a hearing, which lasted 30 minutes. It ordered the applicant to submit, within 30 days, any evidence that might prove that the period of the statutory limitation had been interrupted. The applicant complied with the order on 10 January 1995. 8.  Meanwhile, on 21 September 1994 the applicant instituted inheritance proceedings before a public notary. A notarial notice was issued on 18 January 1995, in accordance with the Hungarian law on inheritance, requiring the estate to be divided up equally between the applicant and her brother. 9.  On 25 January 1995 the applicant informed the District Court that her representative had withdrawn from the case. 
Hearings scheduled for 31 January and 4 April 1995 were adjourned by the District Court, as the applicant, having been hospitalised, was unable to attend. Meanwhile, on 24 March 1995 the applicant notified the court of the name of her new representative. 10.  At the hearing of 20 June 1995 the applicant raised the amount of her claim and requested legal aid. The court ordered the applicant to submit within 30 days all necessary documents proving that she needed legal aid. The applicant complied with the order on 10 August 1995. At the same time, she extended her claim to include her deceased aunt’s estate. 11.  On 18 August 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid and ordered her to pay court fees corresponding to the amount of the increased claim. On 2 November 1995 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. 12.  The applicant’s renewed request for exemption from court fees was granted by the District Court on 16 January 1996. The court also took measures to obtain the case-file concerning the estate of the applicant’s deceased aunt. 13.  On 28 February 1996 the District Court held a hearing, which lasted for 35 minutes. On 13 March 1996 the applicant elaborated her claims.
At the hearing held on 25 June 1996 the court ordered the defendant, who had repeatedly failed to appear before the court, to submit observations on the merits of the applicant’s claims before 5 September 1996. On 6 September 1996 the District Court imposed a fine on the defendant, who, despite a warning, failed to comply with the court’s order. This decision was later quashed as the defendant’s submissions were proved to have been posted on 5 September 1996. 14.  On 19 November 1996 the District Court heard the defendant’s witnesses and ordered the parties to submit their observations within 30 days. At the hearing the applicant asked that witnesses be heard in support of her evidence and extended the scope of her action by requesting that a real estate contract of sale be nullified. The applicant’s observations were submitted on 22 January 1997. 15.  On 12 March 1997 the District Court heard the defendant and a witness. On 7 April 1997 the applicant informed the court that she had given a power of attorney to a new lawyer. 
At the hearing on 24 September 1997 the District Court heard the applicant’s daughter as a witness and ordered the applicant to submit her observations within 15 days. The applicant requested that the time-limit be extended by 30 days as she had been in hospital. Her observations were submitted to the court on 25 February and 12 March 1998. 16.  On 17 June 1998 the District Court held a hearing and requested the applicant to specify her claims in the event of the above-mentioned contract of sale being nullified. 17.  In her submissions to the court of 19 November 1998, the applicant amended her action. She extended the scope of her action by claiming, from the defendant’s wife, her share of the inheritance of her deceased father. 18.  On 20 January 1999 the court suspended the case and requested the parties to institute proceedings before a notary. On 2 March 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s procedural appeal. 19.  On 25 June 1999 the applicant’s representative requested the public notary to undertake inheritance proceedings. 20.  On 28 July 1999 the notary requested the applicant’s representative to submit an authorisation certified by the consulate or a public notary practising in the applicant’s country of residence. 21.  At a hearing on 6 December 1999, the notary set a 30-day time-limit for the parties to submit their claims in respect of any movable property that may have been part of the estate. 22.  On 20 January 2000 the notary discontinued the proceedings as the estate contained no movable property. His decision of 18 January 1995 was therefore declared final. 23.  Subsequently, on 31 March 2000 the applicant requested the court to continue the case, to record in the Land Registry that proceedings concerning the inheritance of her mother’s real estate were pending and to give priority to the next hearing. On 20 April 2000 the District Court ordered that the proceedings be noted in the Land Registry. Following the defendants’ unsuccessful appeal, the Land Registry registered the proceedings on 14 August 2000. 24.  On 27 September 2000 the District Court heard witnesses. It also ordered the defendant to submit his counter-claim within 15 days. 25.  On 17 January 2001 the District Court stated that it lacked jurisdiction as the increased value of the applicant’s amended claim required that the case be heard by the Budapest Regional Court at first instance. The case was therefore discontinued before the District Court and transferred to the Regional Court. 26.  On 24 April 2001 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order to transfer the case. 27.  On 15 November 2001 and 28 February 2002 the Budapest Regional Court held hearings and ordered the applicant to submit the addresses of certain witnesses living in Germany. 
On 24 May 2002 the Regional Court heard witnesses. 28.  At the next hearing held on 17 October 2002, the Regional Court heard several witnesses. On 20 May and 7 October 2003 the court heard the parties. 29.  On 5 November 2003 the court appointed an expert to inspect the real estate in question. The applicant appealed. 30.  The case is still pending at first instance.