4.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lives in Warsaw, Poland. 5.  In November and December 1989 the applicant’s neighbours were renovating an attic over her flat and partly removed the roof. As a result, the applicant’s flat was flooded and her belongings were damaged. 6.  On 3 June 1992 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) a civil action against her neighbours. She requested PLN 4,000 in compensation for damage to her property. On 16 October 1992 the case was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie). 7.  On 17 February 1993 the trial court held its first hearing at which it heard both parties. 8.  In December 1993 the applicant challenged a judge. On 4 January 1994 her application was dismissed. 9.  In 1994 the trial court held five hearings. The applicant’s lawyer twice asked the court not to schedule any hearings during a total period of five weeks because of her holidays. 10.  In 1995 six hearings were held. The trial court ordered preparation of an expert opinion and held a view of the property. 11.  On 28 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 1,500 by way of pecuniary damage and dismissed the remaining part of her action. 12.  Both parties lodged appeals. 13.  In August 1996 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that her case-file was lost. Subsequently, the applicant was requested to provide copies of all documents in order to reconstruct it. 14.  On 13 November 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie) held a hearing at which it gave a judgment. It partly quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the court of first‑instance. 15.  On 24 July 1997 the Warsaw District Court held the first hearing. 16.  On 2 October 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. Subsequently, the court expert who was ordered to inspect the flat and evaluate the damages informed the court about his difficulties in entering the apartment in question. 17.  Between 25 July 1997 and 8 June 1998 no hearings were held. 18.  On 9 June 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to set a new deadline for the expert opinion. The applicant informed the court that in 1994 her flat had been sold by the City Council and that the new owner did not agree to the inspection. The hearing was adjourned sine die. 19.  On 22 October 1998 the trial court held a hearing at which it again decided to send the case-file to the expert and set a one-month deadline for the expert opinion. 20.  In November 1998 the applicant challenged a judge. On 19 November 1998 her application was dismissed. 21.  In April 1999 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court not to schedule any hearings during a three-week period in July because of her holidays. 22.  Between 23 October 1998 and 29 January 2001 no hearings were held. 23.  In January 2001 the case was taken over by another judge. 24.  On 30 January, 10 April and 16 May 2001 the court held hearings. 25.  At the hearing held on 16 May 2001 the court again decided to send the case-file to the expert. 26.  Between 17 May 2001 and 3 December 2002 no hearings were held. 27.  On 4 December 2002 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing and on 18 December 2002 it gave a judgment. 28.  On 25 February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the appellate court.