5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Hamburg. 6.  At the material time the applicant was working as a general practitioner in Hamburg. 7.  On 31 August 1993 the review board at the Hamburg Regional Medical Association (Prüfungsausschuss bei der Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Hamburg), after having examined the applicant’s economic efficiency (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), decided to reduce by 15% the fees payable to her for the first quarter of 1993 and as far as initial check-ups were concerned. It argued that the fees claimed for her initial check-ups exceeded the average for that category by 72% and that there was thus a presumption of a lack of economic efficiency which the applicant had failed to rebut. Instead of 33,200 euros (EUR) the applicant was therefore awarded a reduced sum of EUR 32,200 in quarterly fees. 8.  By a letter dated 8 November 1993 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal. 9.  On 20 October 1994 the appeal board at the Hamburg Medical Association (Beschwerdeausschuss bei dem Prüfungsausschuss der Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung Hamburg – “the appeal board”) dismissed her appeal. It also held that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of her lack of economic efficiency by demonstrating any particularities of her practice or consequent savings justifying the remuneration claimed for initial check-ups. That decision was served upon the applicant on 25 January 1995. 10.  By a letter dated 20 February 1995 the applicant appealed to the Hamburg Social Court. 11.  On 8 March 1995 the court requested the appeal board to submit its pleadings. 12.  In April 1995 the AOK Hamburg, a public health-insurance company, requested a third-party summons (Beiladung). 13.  On 4 July 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule the hearing before mid-September 1995. 14.  On 9 August 1995, following a reminder from the court, the appeal board submitted that the claim should be dismissed, referring to the reasons stated in its decision. It also asked for an extension of the time allowed for submitting additional observations. 15.  On 5 September 1995 the court issued a third-party summons to the Hamburg Medical Association and the health-insurance funds. 16.  On 3 June 1996 the applicant requested the court not to schedule a hearing between 24 June and 19 July 1996. 17.  On 30 May 1997 the court scheduled the hearing for 17 September 1997. 18.  On 17 September 1997, at the hearing, the court requested the appeal board to supply further information as regards reductions of the fees paid to the applicant in previous quarters. 19.  On 5 November 1997 the appeal board submitted the information requested. 20.  In her reply of 13 February 1998 the applicant requested that further inquiries be carried out as to the facts. She also complained about the length of the proceedings. 21.  In March 1998 the court suggested that the appeal board and the third parties submit further observations. 22.  In April 1998 the appeal board filed its pleadings. 23.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant requested the court not to schedule the hearing before 15 September 1998. 24.  On 7 July 1998 the court scheduled the hearing for 7 October 1998. The AOK, a further insurance company, a regional insurance association and also the Hamburg Medical Association were summoned as interested parties. 25.  On 7 October 1998 it dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the appeal board had complied with its duty to provide clarification. It also confirmed the finding that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of her lack of economic efficiency as regards initial check-ups. 26.  By a letter dated 13 November 1998 the applicant appealed to the Hamburg Social Court of Appeal. 27.  On 2 March 1999 the appeal board filed submissions in reply. 28.  On 29 April 1999 the court served those submissions on the applicant and the third parties. 29.  On 27 July 1999 the applicant requested the court not to schedule the hearing before mid-September 1999. 30.  Between the end of November and mid-December 1999 the court moved to a new address. 31.  In April 2000 the applicant’s newly appointed lawyers requested access to the files. 32.  Following a renewed request of 4 July 2000 the court requested them first to submit the form of authority. 33.  On 24 July 2000 the applicant requested the court not to schedule the hearing before the end of September 2000. 34.  On 31 July 2000 the applicant’s lawyers submitted the form of authority. 35.  On 2 October 2000, following a direction of 21 September 2000 to that effect, access to the files was granted. 36.  On 6 November 2000, at the court’s request, the applicant’s lawyers informed the court about her intention to make further observations. 37.  Following two reminders from the court, the lawyers informed the court in March 2001 that they would no longer be representing the applicant. 38.  Following a request by the court, the applicant informed it in June 2001 that she would make further submissions and that she was on holiday in August 2001. 39.  On 18 June 2001 the applicant submitted further observations, including applications for the taking of evidence. 40.  The same day the court requested the parties to indicate whether they agreed with a rapporteur’s decision. 41.  In a letter dated 4 September 2001 the applicant refused to give her consent. 42.  On 20 December 2001 the court scheduled the hearing for 27 March 2002. 43.  On 22 February 2002 the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing since she had to undergo an operation. Owing to her illness she could not pursue her claim for one year. 44.  On 20 January 2003 the court scheduled the hearing for 4 February 2003. 45.  On 4 February 2003 the Hamburg Social Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. It also held that the value of the subject matter of the litigation was EUR 1,000 and refused leave to appeal. 46.  On 30 March 2003 the applicant appealed against the refusal of leave to appeal. 47.  On 11 September 2003 the Federal Social Court dismissed that appeal. 48.  On 17 October 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. 49.  On 25 November 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept her constitutional complaint for adjudication.