4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kočani. 5. On 13 July 1987 the applicant’s parents brought a civil action before the Kočani Municipal Court (Општински Суд Кочани) claiming revocation of a care agreement (“the agreement”) (договор за доживотна издршка) concluded on 25 December 1981 between them and their son, Mr T.K. Under the agreement, Mr T.K. was recognised as holder of the title to a property specified by the agreement in return for caring for his parents. They claimed that after their son’s death in 1982, the defendants, Mr T.K.’s wife and her children no longer lived with them and thus had ceased to fulfil the duties arising from the agreement. 6. On 30 September 1987 the Kočani Municipal Court accepted the claim and revoked the agreement. After hearing the parties to the proceedings and several witnesses, the court found that the personal relationships between the parties had deteriorated over time and that the defendants had consequently failed to care for the applicant’s parents. 7. On 12 February 1988 the then Štip District Court (Окружен Суд во Штип) accepted the defendants’ appeal of 29 October 1987. It held that the agreement had not stated that they should live under the same roof and that the separation of the living arrangements could not be considered a sufficient ground for its revocation. 8. On an unspecified date, the applicant took over the case after her parents died. On 27 June 1991 the Kočani Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court heard the parties, examined eighteen witnesses and admitted a considerable amount of evidence. 9. On 11 November 1992 the Štip District Court accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 10. On 9 February 1993 the Kočani Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as ill-founded. This decision was set aside by the Štip District Court on 27 April 1994. 11. On 11 April 1996 the Kočani Municipal Court, sitting in a different composition, dismissed the applicant’s claim again. On 29 October 1996 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the applicant of 23 May 1996 and quashed the lower court’s decision. It found, inter alia, that the case had been decided by a single judge instead of by a chamber of three judges as required by law. 12. At the only hearing held on 9 July 1997, the Kočani Court of First Instance granted the applicant’s request and revoked the agreement. This decision was partly confirmed by the Štip Court of Appeal on 24 December 1997. This latter court remitted the decision on the trial costs for fresh consideration. 13. On 23 April 1998 the Kočani Court of First Instance rejected an appeal by the defendants on points of law (ревизија) as out of time. On 12 September 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case for re-examination. On 3 November 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the defendants’ appeal on points of law and quashed the lower courts’ decisions described in the preceding paragraph. It found that the first-instance court, sitting in different composition, had erred in law since it had relied on already established evidence without having the parties’ consent to do so. 14. After two hearings, on 13 July 2000 the Kočani Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s claim and revoked the agreement on the same grounds as in its decision of 9 July 1997. On 13 November 2000 the Štip Court of Appeal ruled in the defendants’ favour and set aside this decision for the reasons described in the preceding paragraph. 15. On 15 October 2001 the Kočani Court of First Instance granted the applicant’s request and revoked the agreement. It examined the parties and eleven witnesses and admitted other evidence. None of the three hearings scheduled was adjourned at the applicant’s request. 16.  On 11 March 2003 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the defendants dated 30 November 2001 and confirmed the lower court’s decision on the merits. It overturned (преиначува) it in respect of the trial costs. On 24 April 2003 the defendants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as inadmissible on 12 May 2004. 17. Meanwhile, on 12 May 2003 the Kočani Court of First Instance had granted the applicant’s request for enforcement of the above decisions in respect of the trial costs. On 23 May 2003 the court suspended the enforcement pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. On 30 November 2004 the enforcement proceedings ended. 18. On 6 December 2005 the Kočani Court of First Instance, in separate proceedings, declared the applicant a successor in title (законски наследник) to her late father and granted her title to part of his property. 19.  During the proceedings on the merits, the composition of the first-instance court sitting in the applicant’s case changed four times.