4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tula. 5.  On 1 April 1994 the applicant brought a court action against a troop unit no. 92914 (войсковая часть № 92914), her former employer. She sought reinstatement in her job, lost wages and non-pecuniary damages. 6.  By a judgment of 17 April 1996, the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula upheld the applicant’s action in part. In 1997 both parties to the case brought their appeals. However, the applicant subsequently withdrew her appeal and the defendant’s appeal was not accepted by the court. The exact date when the judgment became final is unknown. 7.  On 1 June 1998 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court, on request of the Chairman of the Tula Regional Court, by way of supervisory review proceedings quashed the judgment of 17 April 1996 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 8.  The first hearing, which was scheduled for 13 November 1998, was postponed because the judge was involved in the examination of another case. 9.  The next hearing was scheduled for 3 March 1999. It did not take place owing to both parties’ failure to appear. 10.  On 5 May 1999 the applicant asked the court to conduct an expert examination. The court adjourned the hearing in view of the need to request additional documents from the defendant. 11.  The following hearings, which were scheduled for 25 June and 2 August 1999, did not take place because of the involvement of the judge in the examination of another case and the judge’s illness, respectively. 12.  On 11 September 1999 the defendant’s representative did not attend. 13.  On 20 September 1999 the court ordered the expert examination and stayed the proceedings. 14.  On 13 March 2000 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings. The first hearing was scheduled for 19 May 2000. It was not held owing to the expiry of the presiding judge’s term of office. 15.  The hearing of 18 September 2000 did not take place because the presiding judge was involved in the examination of another case. 16.  On 16 November 2000 the defendant’s representative failed to attend the hearing. 17.  On 6 December 2000 the court decided to give the applicant time to amend her claims. 18.  The hearings on 16 January and 20 February 2001 were postponed owing to the involvement of the judge in the examination of another case and the judge’s illness, respectively. 19.  The hearing on 30 March 2001 was adjourned because the court decided to give parties time to negotiate the arrears. 20.  On the next hearing, which was scheduled for 14 May 2001, the defendant’s representative did not appear. 21.  On 1 June 2001 the court, at the applicant’s request, asked certain documents from the defendant. 22.  The hearing on 7 September 2001 was adjourned owing to the need to summon and examine witnesses. 23.  On the next hearing, which was scheduled for 1 October 2001, the defendant’s representative did not appear. 24.  Between 30 October and 15 November 2001 the court held seven hearings during which the applicant amended her claims and the defendant lodged a counter-claim. 25.  The first hearing in 2002 did not take place due to the illness of the defendant’s representative. 26.  Three hearings scheduled between 15 May and 16 December 2002 were postponed at the applicant’s request. 27.  The first hearing in 2003 was scheduled for 20 February. It is unknown whether it took place. 28.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant’s case was transferred to another presiding judge. 29.  The hearing of 27 May 2003 was adjourned because the court requested the applicant to amend her claims. 30.  The hearing of 16 June 2003 did not take place because the defendant’s representative failed to attend. 31.  The next hearing was scheduled for 20 August 2003. It was postponed at the request of the defendant. Three subsequent hearings, which were scheduled for 15 October, 4 and 27 November 2003, did not take place because the defendant’s representative repeatedly failed to appear in court. 32.  On 20 January 2004, at the request of the applicant, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court of 1 June 1998 (see paragraph 7 above) and ordered a fresh examination of her case by the Presidium of the Regional Court. 33.  On 17 May 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court again quashed the judgment of 17 April 1996 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination on merits. 34.  The first hearing after the case file was received by the District Court was scheduled for 17 August 2004. It was postponed at the request of the defendant. 35.  The hearing of 29 September 2004 did not take place as the defendant’s representative asked time to study the case file. 36.  On 30 September 2004 the court decided to invite an expert and adjourned the hearing until 12 October 2004. 37.  On 12 October 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it upheld the applicant’s claims in part. 38.  By decisions of 11 and 20 January 2005 the District Court granted the applications by the defendant and the prosecutor, respectively, for the extension of the time-limit for lodging their appeals. 39.  On 5 April 2005, on appeal by the defendant and the public prosecutor, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 October 2004 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination. 40.  The hearing on 8 June 2005 was postponed at the request of the applicant. 41.  On 6 July 2005 the court delivered a judgment by which it again upheld the applicant’s claims in part. 42.  On 6, 7 July and 11 October 2005 the applicant, the public prosecutor and the defendant, respectively, filed their appeals. 43.  On an unspecified date, having prepared the case file, the District Court sent it to the Regional Court for the examination of the appeals. On 24 January 2006 the latter decided to postpone the appeal hearing and remitted the file to the former for remedying certain procedural defects. 44.  On 30 March 2006 the Regional Court reviewed the case and endorsed the District Court’s findings. 45.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought court proceedings against the Bailiffs’ Service of Voronezh complaining about their failure to execute the judgment of 17 April 1996. By the judgment of 28 April 2004, the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh dismissed her claims as being manifestly ill-founded. It appears that the applicant did not appeal and on 10 May 2004 the judgment became final. In 2005 she brought an application for supervisory review proceedings but to no avail.