4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  On 1 October 1997 the applicant was dismissed from her position as head of department of a state research institute. On 24 February 1998 she lodged a court action against her former employer with the Vuborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”). She requested the court to reinstate her in her previous position, recover and index-link the unpaid salary, and award compensation for unused leave and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her claims. The domestic courts examined her claims three times at two levels of jurisdiction. 6. The case was initially assigned to judge V. who, on 30 November 1998, scheduled a hearing for 3 December 1998. On an unspecified date in 2001 the case was reassigned to judge N. 7.  Between 1998 and 2002 the proceedings were adjourned several times for various reasons. 8.  During three periods (between 8 December 1998 and 1 March 1999, between 21 March and 28 April 2000, and between 15 January and 11 April 2001) no hearings were scheduled because the judge was on sick leave. The case was also adjourned from 5 February until 10 April 2002 because the court’s registrar was on sick leave. 9.  The proceedings were adjourned between 3 and 9 June 1999, 29 November 1999 and 21 March 2000, 28 April and 2 June 2000, 19 June and 25 September 2002 because the defendant failed to attend. They were also adjourned from 25 July until 9 August 2000 and from 10 April until 19 June 2002 because the defendant’s representative was on a business trip. 10.  The case was postponed from 9 June until 5 August 1999 and from 17 until 25 December 2002 because the applicant’s counsel failed to attend. 11.  The proceedings were also adjourned on several occasions because the applicant amended her claims and the defendant needed additional time to comment on them. 12.  On 25 December 2002 the District Court awarded the applicant a certain amount in compensation for unused leave and compensation for legal costs. It further held that the applicant’s claim for compensation for delayed payment of her salary was unsubstantiated and dismissed it. Finally, it found that the remainder of the applicant’s claims were either unsubstantiated or lodged out of time. 13.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant filed the final version of her grounds of appeal against the judgment of 25 December 2002 with the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”). A hearing was scheduled for 9 June 2003. On that date the case was adjourned until 23 June 2003 because the applicant did not attend. 14.  On 23 June 2003 the City Court quashed the judgment of 25 December 2002 in so far as it had dismissed the applicant’s claims for compensation for delayed payment of salary and remitted this part of the case to the District Court for fresh examination. The City Court found that this part of the judgment was not duly reasoned. It upheld the rest of the judgment. 15.  On 31 July 2003 the case was transmitted to the District Court and assigned to judge T. On 1 September 2003 a hearing was scheduled for 4 November 2003. On that date the case was adjourned until 17 December 2003 because the applicant’s counsel failed to attend. 16.  Subsequently, the case was adjourned several times for various reasons. In particular, on 25 February and 8 June 2004 the case was adjourned until 2 March and 7 September 2004 respectively because the defendant’s representative did not have the necessary power of attorney. On 2 June 2004 the case was adjourned until 8 June 2004 because the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings. On 1 February 2005 the case was adjourned again because the judge was on sick leave. 17.  On 17 March 2005, after a fresh examination, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. However, on 19 October 2005 the City Court quashed that judgment as unlawful and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. 18.  On 26 October 2005 the case was referred to the District Court and assigned to judge S. 19.  On 22 November 2005 the District Court awarded the applicant compensation for delayed payment of her salary. It further held that the domestic law did not provide for further indexation of the amount of compensation. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims. On 7 February 2006 the City Court upheld that judgment.