4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  In February 1998 she lodged a court action against her brother and the St Petersburg Committee on Land Management with the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”). She claimed that her brother had unlawfully acquired the title deeds to a plot of land adjacent to her house and had destroyed her garden. In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her claim several times. 6.  On 20 July 1998 Judge A. accepted the case for examination. Several hearings were scheduled in 1998 and in the first half of 1999. They were adjourned either because the parties failed to appear or because the judge was on sick leave. 7.  On 8 June 1999 the District Court refused to examine the case on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear at two court hearings. The applicant requested the District Court to reinstate the proceedings as she had not been duly notified of the hearings. On 28 June 1999 the proceedings were reinstated. 8.  The first hearing in the reinstated proceedings was scheduled for 22 September 1999. On that date the applicant amended her claim and the case was adjourned. The hearing of 21 October 1999 was adjourned because the judge was on sick leave and that of 14 December 1999 because she was involved in unrelated proceedings. 9.  In 2000 several hearings were adjourned for a variety of reasons. 10.  On 4 July 2000 the judge ordered an expert’s report at the applicant’s request, and suspended the proceedings. 11.  On 5 March 2001 the expert’s report was finished and the proceedings were resumed. Several hearings were scheduled in the remaining part of 2001 at regular intervals but most of them were adjourned for various reasons. 12.  In 2002, the hearing of 29 March did not take place because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. The next hearing, scheduled for 29 May, was adjourned because the judge was on a training course. 13.  Several hearings were scheduled in 2003. Of them, the hearing of 4 June did not take place, because the representative of the Committee on Land Management failed to appear. The next hearing was scheduled for 16 September, but it was postponed because the judge was on sick leave. The hearing of 2 December 2003 did not take place because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. 14.  In 2004, the hearing of 11 February was postponed because the applicant was sick. The next hearing was scheduled for 12 May; however, it did not take place due to the defendants’ failure to appear. The next hearing was scheduled for 22 September, but the representative of the Committee on Land Management did not appear and requested that the case go ahead in his absence. However, the judge postponed the examination of the case until 30 November 2004. On that date the hearing was adjourned because the defendant’s representative failed to attend. The hearing of 21 December 2004 did not take place because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. 15.  Several hearings were scheduled in the first half of 2005. They were adjourned for a variety of reasons. 16.  On 1 June 2005 the District Court terminated the proceedings in the case on the grounds that the applicant’s claim could not be examined within civil proceedings. On 31 August 2005 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the decision of 1 June 2005, on the applicant’s appeal, having found that that decision had not corresponded to the circumstances of the case and had been made in violation of procedural rules. Furthermore, the City Court drew the District Court’s attention to the fact that the proceedings had already lasted for seven years and that such a duration could be said to have violated the applicant’s right to examination of her claims within a reasonable time. The City Court remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court. 17.  On 10 November 2005 the District Court heard the case and dismissed the applicant’s action in full. On 3 March 2006 City Court upheld that judgment on appeal.