4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  On 15 November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Doktor Aibolit Private Clinic seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to her by inappropriate dental treatment. Mr S., the doctor who had treated the applicant, joined the proceedings as a third party. 6.  On 14 December 2000 the court ordered a forensic examination, which was completed in July 2001. 7.  On 26 September 2001 Mr S. lodged a counter-claim against the applicant seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused to his reputation. On an unspecified date the counter-claim was disjoined from the proceedings. 8.  On 30 April 2002 the court found against the applicant. 9.  On 23 September 2002, following an appeal by the applicant, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration. 10.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to join the Cabot Private Clinic to the case as a co-defendant. On an unspecified date that request was granted. 11.  On 3 July 2003 the Podilskyy Court declined to consider the applicant's claim because she had failed to appear before the court on that day. 12.  On 11 September 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. 13.  On 1 June 2005, following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 3 July and 11 September 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration on the merits to the Podilskyy Court. 14.  On 11 May 2007 the Podilskyy Court rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated. 15.  On 11 June 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal. 16.  On 19 March 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 11 May 2007. 17.   On 7 August 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. 18.  The applicant modified her claims on three occasions and lodged several requests which concerned various procedural matters, including audio recording of hearings, withdrawal of judges, securing of evidence and so on. Out of thirty-five hearings held in the course of the proceedings, nine were adjourned on account of the absence of a judge, three were adjourned because of the unavailability of audio equipment used to record hearings, two were adjourned at the request of the applicant, five were adjourned owing to the defendants' failure to appear, one was adjourned owing to both parties' failure to appear, and two were adjourned owing to witnesses' failure to appear.