4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine. 5.  The applicant had worked at a joint stock company, V., since 1968. On 4 November 1996 she was dismissed. 6.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv against V., seeking reinstatement and payment of salary arrears still owed to her following her allegedly unlawful dismissal. 7.  On 28 January 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. 8.  On 18 March 1998 the Kyiv City Court (since June 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal), noting the lower court’s failure to examine the important pieces of evidence, quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 9.  Of the eleven hearings held between 29 November 1996 and 18 March 1998 two were adjourned due to the applicant’s or her lawyer’s failure to appear before the court; four hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear before the court. Furthermore, on 19 May 1997 the defendant requested the court to schedule the next hearing after 1 August 1997 since its representative was on holiday; that request was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for 22 October 1997. 10.  In April 1998 the case was transferred to the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv (since October 2001 the Golosiyisky District Court of Kyiv, “the District Court”). 11.  Two hearings scheduled for 4 and 25 June 1998 were adjourned at the applicant’s requests as she was hiring a lawyer and the latter was subsequently engaged in other court proceedings. 12.  On 12 January 1999 the applicant lodged an additional claim, seeking payment of salary arrears allegedly owed to her for 1992-96. 13.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to order a forensic technical examination and to exempt her from payment of its costs. On 20 April 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant’s first-mentioned request, ordered the forensic technical examination and stayed the proceedings; apparently the court did not allow the applicant’s request to exempt her from payment of the costs of the forensic examination. Subsequently the applicant requested the court to stay the forensic examination as she had appealed against the decision of 20 April 1999. It is not clear when the applicant’s appeal was examined and what was the result thereof. The court resumed the proceedings on 10 August 1999. 14.  At the end of September 1999 the applicant requested the District Court to order a new forensic examination and to order the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to bear the costs. Following the court’s refusal, the applicant requested the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to grant money for the forensic examination at issue and requested the District Court to stay the proceedings pending examination of her first-mentioned request by the Ministry. The proceedings resumed on 16 December 1999. 15.  From 5 September 2000 to 8 January 2001 the proceedings were stayed at the applicant’s request as she had requested the local prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the defendant company. 16.  On 14 and 28 January 2002 the applicant lodged additional claims, seeking to have the amount of her salary established and to be compensated for her allegedly impaired honour and dignity. 17.  On 11 March 2002 the Golosiyisky District Court of Kyiv found against the applicant. The latter appealed. 18.  From 29 May to 17 July 2002 the proceedings were stayed as the applicant’s complaint was pending before the Kyiv City Department of Justice. 19.  On 24 July 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the ground that the lower court had failed to examine all the applicant’s claims. 20.  Of the sixty hearings held between April 1998 and 24 July 2002 fifteen (including all hearings between 7 June and 8 October 2001) were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear before the court. Furthermore, from 17 July 1998 to 6 October 1998 no hearing took place as the defendant’s representative was on holiday. Additionally to the above sixty hearings, eight scheduled hearings were cancelled because the judge was considering another case or the hearing was scheduled for a day which was subsequently identified as a holiday.
During this period the applicant challenged the judges in charge of her case at least five times and the case was transferred to other judges. She also challenged the court minutes several times (in particular, she successively challenged the court minutes of 25 February and 7 and 25 March 2002, but to no avail). 21.  On 2 August 2002 the District Court took over the case. 22.  On 23 April 2003 the applicant lodged an additional claim, seeking certain social payments from the defendant. 23.  On 27 May 2003 the Golosiyisky District Court of Kyiv rejected the applicant’s claim. 24.  On 22 August 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation. 25.  From 27 October 2003 to 31 March 2004 the courts determined whether the applicant’s appeals in cassation were admissible. Eventually this matter was determined in favour of the applicant. 26.  On 26 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 27 May 2003. 27.  Of the nineteen hearings held between 2 August 2002 and 26 September 2005 four were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear before the District Court. On nine occasions the applicant challenged the records of the court hearings but mostly to no avail. 28.  In February 2007 the applicant requested the Supreme Court of Ukraine to review her case under the extraordinary review procedure. On 25 July 2007 the court rejected the applicant’s request. 29.  Following her dismissal, on 17 July 1998 the applicant was excluded from the list of persons awaiting improvement of their living conditions, administered by the relevant municipal authority (companies which invest in the construction of apartments are permitted to include their employees on this list if certain conditions are fulfilled). 30.  In August 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv against the Kyiv City State Administration, the Pecherska District State Administration of Kyiv and V., requesting the defendants to provide her with an apartment. 31.  On 26 January 2005 the court rejected her claims. It found, in particular, that inclusion on the list was conditional on having a contract of employment with the particular companies and, as the applicant had been dismissed from V., she was no longer eligible to be on that list. According to the applicant, her representative, R., was not summoned and, despite of her request for an adjournment, the court hearing was held in her presence only. 32.  On 1 June 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. As regards the applicant’s complaint about the court hearing in the absence of her representative, the court noted that the applicant had failed to submit to the first-instance court the power of attorney in respect of R. According to the applicant, she had submitted a copy of that document. 33.  On 14 August 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. 34.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv against V., seeking her reinstatement on the aforesaid list of persons. It appears from the materials submitted by the applicant that her application was unsuccessful. On 13 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.