7.  On 3 April 1992 the applicant claimed restitution of a house before the Bratislava IV District Court. She relied on the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991. 8.  On 21 December 1993 the District Court dismissed the claim. The judgment stated that the house had been taken away from the applicant's parents pursuant to President Beneš's Decree No. 108/1945, in 1945, and that the possibility of restoring property under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act extended only to cases where the property had been taken away between 25 February 1948 and 1 January 1990. 9.  The applicant appealed. She claimed that she had acquired the house in question as an heir following her mother's death in 1941. She concluded that the subsequent confiscation of the house had been void as at that time her parents no longer owned it and that she had never stopped being the owner of the property. 10.  On 31 May 1994 the applicant authorised her son to represent her in the proceedings. 11.  By a decision of 24 June 1994 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay the court fees. On 11 July 1994 the applicant appealed against this decision. At the same time she requested a waiver from the obligation to pay the fees. On 15 July 1994 the District Court decided not to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay the fees. On 18 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decisions of 24 June and 15 July 1994 as the relevant law had been amended to the effect that no court fees were due in respect of proceedings under the Extra‑Judicial Rehabilitations Act. 12.  By a separate decision delivered on 18 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the first instance judgment of 21 December 1993 and instructed the District Court to establish the relevant facts of the case. 13.  On 5 June 1997 the Bratislava IV District Court again dismissed the applicant's claim. The court found void the confiscation of the property in question as the applicant's mother had died in 1941, that is prior to the confiscation. It noted that no inheritance proceedings had been held contrary to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. The District Court further noted that the defendant had inherited the house from her predecessor and that the latter had bought it from the House Administration in Devínska Nová Ves on 30 May 1969. Accordingly, the former owner had not “transferred”, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, the property to the defendant and the latter was not, therefore, obliged to restore it to the applicant under the provisions of that Act. 14.  On 1 August 1997 the applicant appealed. She claimed, in particular, that the defendant was obliged to restore the property as her legal predecessor fell within Section 4 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. 15.  On 21 October 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment of 5 June 1997. The appellate court held that the confiscation had taken effect on 25 October 1945, that is outside the period covered by the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. It considered irrelevant that the property had been formally confiscated from the applicant's mother who had died in 1941. 16.  The Regional Court further found that the property had not been “transferred” to the defendant within the meaning of Section 4(2) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act as she had inherited it following the death of her legal predecessor. The judgment was served on the applicant on 29 March 1999 and the decision to dismiss the applicant's claim thus became final. 17.  On 3 May 1999 the appellate court received the applicant's appeal on points of law. In it she argued that the appellate court had failed to notify her of the defendant's written submissions and that the composition of the appellate court's panel had been changed just before the hearing in the case. The applicant requested that a lawyer be appointed to represent her in the proceedings. 18.  The case file was submitted to the Bratislava IV District Court on 6 May 1999. On 2 July 1999 the applicant submitted a certificate concerning her financial situation at the court's request. 19.  On 17 December 1999 the District Court asked the defendant to submit comments on the applicant's appeal on points of law. The defendant replied on 10 January 2000. 20.  On 18 January 2000 the District Court submitted the case file to the Supreme Court. The latter returned the file to the District Court on 6 April 2000 with the instruction to decide on the applicant's request concerning the appointment of a lawyer. The District Court was further requested to clarify the circumstances in which the appellate court's judgment had been served. 21.  On 6 October 2003 the Bratislava IV District Court made an inquiry concerning the old-age pension which the applicant had received. It further asked the applicant's son to inform it whether he had stayed at home between 11 and 15 March 1999. The District Court reiterated the latter request on 12 February 2004. 22.  On 31 March 2004 the Bratislava IV District Court asked for the file concerning the estate of the applicant. The file was submitted to it on 10 May 2004. 23.  On 10 May 2004 the Bratislava IV District Court requested the applicant's son to eliminate shortcomings in the appeal on points of law. On 27 September 2004 the District Court issued a formal decision to the same effect. The applicant's son submits that none of these documents has been served on him.