6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives predominantly in Germany. 7.  Upon the death of her parents, the applicant, together with her brother, B.R., inherited a house and plot of land in Sofia, a plot of land in the village of Dolni Pasarel, and two fields. 8.  On 9 July 1996 B.R. brought a claim against the applicant with the Sofia District Court (Софийски районен съд), seeking the division of the house and of the two plots. 9.  At the first hearing, held on 10 December 1996, the applicant requested that the two fields be included in the division as well. The court allowed the request and adjourned the case, instructing the parties to submit evidence, including plans of the two plots. 10.  A hearing listed for 6 March 1997 was adjourned because the plans, which had to be provided by the municipal authorities, were not ready, and another hearing, scheduled for 6 May 1997, failed to take place because counsel for B.R. was absent. 11.  On 23 September 1997 the court asked an expert to determine the value of the properties and say whether it was possible to divide them up. A hearing listed for 20 January 1998 did not take place because the expert report was not ready. The report was apparently never drawn up. 12.  On 19 March 1998 the court, on a request by the parties, stayed the proceedings to allow them to settle the case. However, as they could not reach an agreement, the proceedings resumed on an unspecified later date in 1998. 13.  Two hearings, fixed for 29 October 1998 and 2 February 1999, did not take place because the applicant was not duly summoned and was absent. A hearing was held despite the applicant’s absence on 16 March 1999. 14.  In a judgment of 15 April 1999 the Sofia District Court allowed the division of the properties into two equal shares. As neither party appealed, the judgment became final and the court proceeded with the second phase of the proceedings. 15.  At a hearing held on 19 October 1999 the applicant requested that the house be allotted exclusively to her. B.R. requested the appointment of an expert to answer the same questions as the one appointed during the first phase of the proceedings. 16.  A hearing listed for 18 November 1999 was adjourned because the expert report was not ready. 17.  At a hearing held on 16 December 1999 the court admitted the report in evidence. Its conclusion was that none of the properties was divisible. The parties did not contest that conclusion. 18.  In a judgment of 10 January 2000 the Sofia District Court allotted the house and plot of land in Sofia to the applicant, and the plot in Dolni Pasarel and the two fields to B.R. 19.  B.R. appealed, requesting, among other things, an expert report on the value of the properties and on the possibilities of their being divided up. 20.  The first hearing before the Sofia City Court (Софийски градски съд) was held on 6 July 2000. The court refused to order the expert report requested by B.R., and adjourned the case to allow the parties to call witnesses and present additional evidence. 21.  At the next hearing, held on 25 October 2000, the court heard two witnesses. It agreed to order the expert report sought by B.R. 22.  Two hearings, listed for 31 January and 3 May 2001, were adjourned because the report had not been drawn up. 23.  The report, which concluded that the house in Sofia was divisible but that the plot in Dolni Pasarel was indivisible, was ready on 23 October 2001. It was admitted in evidence at a hearing held on 31 October 2001. The applicant objected to the report’s conclusions, and requested a second expert report, to be drawn up by three experts. B.R. requested an expert report on the possibility of dividing up one of the fields. 24.  At the next hearing, held on 20 March 2002, B.R. presented a blueprint, approved by the technical services of the municipality, for the division of the house. The court admitted in evidence the expert report on the divisibility of the field, and, on a request by the applicant, ordered an expert report on the current value of the plot in Dolni Pasarel. 25.  A hearing listed for 6 November 2002 was adjourned because the expert reports were not ready. The court asked the expert assessing the value of the plot in Dolni Pasarel to determine the value of the two fields as well. 26.  At a hearing held on 29 May 2003 the court admitted in evidence the additional expert report relating to the house, which also concluded that it was divisible, and the expert report concerning the value of the plot in Dolni Pasarel and the two fields. The applicant disputed the conclusions of the former, and requested a fresh expert report on the divisibility of the house. The court allowed her request, notwithstanding the objection of B.R. 27.  At a hearing held on 12 February 2004 counsel for the applicant stated, without further explanation, that she wished to withdraw the request for an expert report on the divisibility of the house. It seems that the withdrawal was based on the fact that the applicant had failed to pay the required fees for the report to be drawn up. 28.  The last hearing was held on 29 April 2004. The court presented to the parties a draft division proposal. The applicant objected to it, arguing, among other things, that the house was indivisible. She requested a further expert report on that point. The court refused the request, observing that the applicant had earlier been allowed to seek such a report, but had failed to pay the required deposit. Evidentiary requests at such a late stage were possible only if truly indispensable for the proper determination of the case. 29.  In a judgment of 10 May 2004 the Sofia City Court set the lower court’s judgment aside. It decided, among other things, to disregard the initial expert reports on the divisibility of the house and to rely on the last one, observing that it was objective and that the three experts who had drawn it up were unanimous. It rejected the applicant’s objections against that report, noting, among other things, that she had been allowed to request a further expert report but had failed to pursue that possibility. It found that the house was divisible, because it was technically possible to do so and there was a blueprint approved by the municipal administration. It further found that the division could be effected by drawing lots without great inconvenience. Accordingly, the court divided the properties into two lots, the first comprising the first storey of the house in Sofia and the plot in Dolni Pasarel, and the second comprising the second storey of the house and the two fields. 30.  On 20 July 2004 the applicant appealed on points of law. On 22 July 2004 the Sofia City Court instructed her to specify her grievances. She did so on 21 September 2004, arguing that the court had erred in finding that the house could be divided. The expert report on which it had relied had not taken into account the applicable construction rules. The court had also erred in refusing the applicant’s request for a further expert report; she had failed to pay the required deposit because she had been out of the country at the time. 31.  The Supreme Court of Cassation (Върховен касационен съд) held a hearing on 21 February 2005, and in a final judgment of 7 April 2005 upheld the lower court’s judgment. It noted that counsel for the applicant had withdrawn the request for a further expert report. The applicant could not therefore validly complain that she had been denied the opportunity to adduce evidence concerning the divisibility of the house. Her objections concerning the plan for the division had been discussed and rejected by the lower court. The court went on to observe that the experts and the municipal administration had found that the division could be effected without too much inconvenience and without infringing the applicable construction regulations. Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion that the house was divisible was not contrary to the substantive law. 32.  The proceedings then resumed before the Sofia District Court. At a hearing held on 21 June 2005 the applicant and B.R. drew lots to determine which of the divided properties should go to whom. B.R. received the first storey of the house in Sofia and the plot in Dolni Pasarel, and the applicant received the second storey of the house and the two fields. The court confirmed the division, ordered the applicant to pay B.R. a small sum to equalise their respective shares, and terminated the proceedings. 33.  On 29 June 2005 the applicant appealed against the proposed division. On 4 July 2005 the Sofia District Court instructed her to specify her grievances and pay the requisite fee. The court’s instructions were served on the applicant’s counsel on 7 September 2005. On 14 September 2005 he requested an extension of time, citing the applicant’s being abroad. On 13 October 2005 the court granted an extension until 15 October 2005. 34.  As the applicant did not comply with the court’s instructions, on 25 January 2006 the court refused to forward the appeal to the higher court for examination. Despite visits to the applicant’s home on 3, 8 and 17 February, 1 March, 16, 20 and 27 April, and 1 May 2006, the court’s process servers were not able to find the applicant to notify her of the court’s ruling. On 22 May 2006 they served notice of the ruling on the applicant’s counsel. As he did not seek to appeal against the ruling, it became final on 30 May 2006.