8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the city of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine. 9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10.  From November 1994 until September 1996 the applicant worked as a lawyer in the Avers Ltd. auditing company (hereinafter – the “Company”), of which she was a shareholder. Her share in the Company’s capital was 30 %. 11.  On 2 September 1996, the applicant handed an application attested by a notary and dated 12 August 1996 to Mrs. N., director and holder of 70 % of shares in the Company’s capital, notifying the latter of her decision to withdraw from the Company. The same day, Mrs N. together with Mrs L. and Mrs K. held a general meeting of shareholders and decided to admit Mrs L. and Mrs K. to the Company and to expel the applicant. On 12 September 1996, the Executive Committee of the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Council of Zaporizhzhya (hereinafter – the Executive Committee) passed decision no. 756-P about registration of the changes to the statutory documents of the Company by which the applicant was expelled from the Company on the basis of her application of 2 September 1996 and of the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders of the same day. 12.  On 31 January 1997 the Company decided that the value of the applicant’s share was UAH 2,629.20[1]. The applicant maintained that according to the accounting documents her share had to be UAH 294,180[2]. 13.  On 6 November 1997 the Executive Committee passed decision no. 143 on termination of the State registration of the Company on the basis of the decision of the meeting of shareholders of the Company of 28 October 1997. 14.  On 23 March 1998 the liquidation commission issued an act on termination of the liquidation procedure of the Company. 15.  On 20 November 1996, the applicant lodged a claim with the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya against the Company to receive compensation for her share in the Company’s assets. 16.  On 25 November 1996 the court gave a ruling on attachment of the defendant’s car and bank accounts to secure the claim. 17.  On 11 August 1997 the court also ordered the seizure of the vehicle VAZ 21099 that belonged to the defendant. 18.  Between December 1996 and 3 April 2003, the first instance court scheduled the applicant’s case for hearing twenty-five times. During the said period only four hearings in the case were held and on twenty-one occasions the hearings were postponed on different grounds. Four times the case was transferred from one judge to another following motions of the applicant or the defendant, or due to expiry of the judge’s term of office. The case was also transferred from one first instance court to another at the request of the applicant. The proceedings were suspended on several occasions at the applicant’s request. 19.  On 18 December 1997 the director of the Company informed the court that by the order of the Executive Committee the Company had been liquidated. 20.  On 29 December 1997 the court ordered seizure of office equipment of the Company. 21.  In January 1998 the bailiff informed the court that there was no property in the Company because it had been liquidated. 22.  On 26 August 1998 Judge S. upon the applicant’s request sent letters of inquiry concerning the Company’s debtors. 23.  On 21 February 2003 the tax authorities, in reply to the inquiry of Judge M.B., informed the latter that the Company’s registration had been cancelled in 1999. 24.  On 28 February 2003 Judge M.B. issued a ruling obliging the applicant to inform the court about the successors of the Company. 25.  On 3 April 2003 Judge M.B. discontinued the proceedings in the case due to the failure of the applicant to appear before the court and to submit the requested information. The applicant maintained that she had learned about this decision only from the Government’s observations on her application before the Court. 26.  On 20 February 2004, when the applicant changed her original claim by replacing the defendant Company by the members of the liquidation commission of the Company, the proceedings were resumed. 27.  On 5 November 2005 the Leninsky District Court rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that the liquidation commission could not be held responsible for the debts of the Company that it had liquidated. 28.  On 22 December 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal for failure to pay the court fee in full. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. The proceedings are still pending. 29.  On 14 January 1997[3] the applicant lodged a claim with the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya against the Company and the Executive Committee to invalidate the decisions of 2 and 12 September 1996 and to restore her status as a shareholder of the Company. 30.  From 17 October 1997, the first instance court scheduled the applicant’s case for hearing seventeen times. During the said period only two hearings in the case were held and on fifteen occasions the hearings were postponed on different grounds. Four times the case was transferred from one judge to another following motions of the applicant or the defendant, or due to expiry of the judge’s term of office. The case was also transferred from one first instance court to another at the request of the applicant. The proceedings were suspended on several occasions at the applicant’s request. 31.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant supplemented her original claim by requesting the court to invalidate the decision of the Company of 28 October 1997 and the decision of the Executive Committee of 6 November 1997 on termination of the State registration of the Company. 32.  On 18 February 1998 Judge S. summoned the head of the Company’s liquidation committee to appear at the hearing on 24 March 1998. 33.  On 24 March 1998 the court hearing was adjourned because the Company’s lawyer requested that certain documents be demanded and a witness be summoned. 34.  On 31 March 1998, when the Company was still in the State register of enterprises, the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Court issued a ruling prohibiting the Executive Committee from issuing orders to liquidate the Company. 35.  On 4 June 1998 the court held a hearing in the absence of both parties and decided in favour of the applicant and quashed the decisions of both the shareholders’ meetings and the Executive Committee. 36.  On 19 February 1999 the Presidium of the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court quashed the decision of 4 June 1998 under the supervisory review procedure and remitted the case to the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Court for a fresh consideration. 37.  On 15 September 1999 the case was referred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya following the applicant’s request. In the absence of any further information from the parties, it appears that these proceedings are still pending. 38.  On 28 August 1997 the applicant lodged a claim with the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya against Mr L.A.F. (a son-in-law of the director of the Company) to invalidate the sales contract for the car (mentioned in the first set of the proceedings), concluded between the Company and Mr L.A.F. The same day the court started the proceedings and ordered the seizure of the impugned vehicle. 39.  Since 28 August 1997, the first instance court has scheduled the applicant’s case for hearing seventeen times, but all of the hearings were postponed on different grounds. Three times the case was transferred from one judge to another following motions of the applicant or the defendant, or due to expiry of the judge’s term of office. The case was also transferred from one first instance court to another at the request of the applicant. 40.  On 17 March 1998 the court passed a ruling on the assignment of the car to the applicant’s charge pending delivery of a judgment in the case. 41.  On 15 September 1999 the case was referred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya following the applicant’s request. 42.  On 17 March 2003 the tax administration informed the court that the Company registration had been cancelled as from 1999. 43.  On 4 March 2004 the Leninsky District Court invalidated the sales contract and awarded the car to the applicant. This decision became final on 5 May 2004.