4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest. 5.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant brought an action for divorce, the division of the matrimonial property, and the regulation of the use of the couple’s flat of common ownership. 6.  The Pest Central District Court held hearings on 24 April, 20 October 1996, 16 February and 4 December 1997. On the latter date, the District Court pronounced the couple’s divorce and, at the parties’ request, suspended the proceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property and the use of the flat. On 11 December 1997 the applicant requested that the examination of the case be continued. 7.  Subsequently, the District Court held hearings on 12 June, 16 December 1998, 6 May 1999, and 24 May, 8 December 2000 and 23 January 2001. 8.  On 8 February 2001 the District Court divided the parties’ matrimonial property, granting ownership of the flat to the respondent, and ordered him to pay compensation to the applicant. The parties appealed. 9.  On 3 July 2001 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case to the District Court, instructing it to complete its decision, in particular, to decide on the applicant’s claims concerning the use of the flat. 10.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 30 October 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias. 11.  On 22 February 2002 the court completed its original decision. It terminated the applicant’s right to the enjoyment of the flat and dismissed her claims in this respect. 12.  On appeal, the Regional Court held hearings on 4 July and 10 October 2002. On that date it partly changed the first-instance decision and gave ownership of the flat to the applicant, terminated the respondent’s right of use, obliging him to leave the flat within 30 days, and ordered the applicant to pay compensation. 13.  Since the respondent failed to comply with the decision, enforcement proceedings were instituted against him on 19 December 2002. On 20 March 2003 the District Court corrected its execution order. 14.  On 22 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s petition for review, filed against the decision of 10 October 2002. 15.  On 26 April 2003 the District Court appointed a judicial executor. On 16 June 2003 the applicant requested the executor to proceed with the case as soon as possible. On the same date the District Court dismissed the respondent’s request to have the proceedings suspended. On 9 December 2003 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal. 16.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant requested the District Court to order that the execution be carried out with the assistance of the police. On 2 March 2004 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an order under section 174(d) of the Code of Judicial Enforcement. 17.  On 9 April 2004 the respondent was evicted.