4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Budapest. 5.  The applicant owns a flat in a two-flat house. In 1992 Mr F. and Ms K., a married couple, bought the other flat and thus became co-owners of the house. 6.  On 24 February 1993 the Szeged District Land Registry registered the couple’s ownership of the flat they had bought. The applicant appealed, claiming to have a right of pre-emption. On 4 November 1993 the Csongrád County Land Registry dismissed her administrative appeal. She sought judicial review. 7.  On 15 July 1994 the Szeged District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On 21 February 1995 the Csongrád County Regional Court dismissed her appeal. 8.  On 11 March 1996 the Supreme Court reversed these judgments, quashed the decision of 4 November 1993 and remitted the case to the District Land Registry. 9.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 16 September 1996 the District Land Registry restored the original situation (as it had been prior to 24 February 1993). 10.  In 1995 civil proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the couple. They sought the termination of the common ownership of the house as well as damages. In her counterclaim, the applicant requested the Szeged District Court to award her damages, stating that the plaintiffs had broken into her flat and had carried out works therein, causing major damage. She claimed that these actions amounted to trespass. 11.  In a partial judgment of 20 March 1996, the District Court ordered the plaintiffs to restore the applicant’s flat to its original state and to pay damages. The court suspended the examination of the issue of termination of common ownership pending the registration of the plaintiffs’ ownership rights by the Land Registry. 12.  On 10 December 1996 the Csongrád County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court, ordering that an expert opinion be obtained. 13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 3 December 1997 the District Court found, relying on the opinion of an expert, that the plaintiffs had been trespassing when they had made alterations in the applicant’s flat and ordered them to restore it to its original state and to pay damages. The issue of termination of common ownership remained suspended. 14.  On 5 May 1998 the Regional Court partly amended the first-instance judgment by annulling the plaintiffs’ obligation to restore the flat and lowering the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant. 15.  On 11 November 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the first- and second-instance judgments and remitted the case to the District Court. 16.  On 10 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action and ordered them to restore the flat to its original state, and to pay the applicant damages, plus accrued interest and unrealised rent. 17.  On 27 April 2000 the Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision by raising the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant. 18.  On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ petitions for review. This decision was served on the applicant on 14 September 2002. 19.  On 10 July 1997 the couple again requested the registration of their ownership, claiming that more than a year had passed since the final decision in the case under (A) above, during which time the applicant had not exercised her right of pre-emption. The couple’s request was dismissed by the first- and second-instance Land Registries. 20.  On 8 December 1997 the applicant informed the Csongrád County Land Registry of her intention to exercise her right of pre-emption and buy the flat in issue. 21.  The applicant’s subsequent request to have her ownership registered was dismissed by the County Land Registry in 1998. In 1999 she brought an action in the Csongrád County Regional Court, challenging this decision. 22.  On 31 August 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, observing that, despite warning, she had failed to submit any documents proving that her purchase of the flat had been concluded. 23.  On 3 October 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review, holding that the second-instance decision had been delivered according to the law. This decision was served on the applicant on 20 November 2002. 24.  In a prosecution for the offences of causing criminal damage and trespass, conducted against one of the plaintiffs in the case under (B) above, the applicant, acting as a civil-law party (magánfél), claimed damages from the defendant. On 13 November 1997 the Szeged District Court found the latter guilty as charged and ordered him to pay damages to the applicant. 25.  On appeal, on 27 October 1999 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court acquitted the defendant and dismissed the applicant’s claims, holding that they had already been determined in the proceedings under (B) above. On 4 July 2000 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the second-instance court. 26.  In the resumed proceedings, on 26 October 2000 the County Regional Court amended the District Court’s judgment of 13 November 1997. It convicted the defendant, but dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages, confirming that this issue had already been determined in the proceedings under (B) above.