4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ljubljana. 5.  On 21 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Ljubljana Local Court against M.P. and N.M. requesting the court to determine the validity of a sale contract concluded between the defendants concerning an apartment in a building partially owned by the applicant and proposing that a note on dispute be entered in the Land Register. She indicated as the disputed value SIT 500,000 (approximately EUR 2,100). 6.  On 20 August 1997 the court issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s proposal to enter a note on dispute in the Land Register. The applicant appealed. 7.  On 18 February 1998, after several unsuccessful attempts to serve the applicant’s appeal on the first defendant, the court posted the appeal on the court’s notice board. 8.  On 4 March 1998 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 20 August 1997. 9.  Following the applicant’s supervisory appeal to the Ministry of Justice, the court on 18 February 1998 reported to the Ministry that the case could not be given priority. 10.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing. 11.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant requested the court to give priority to her claims which she had lodged with the court. 12.  On 5 April 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s request. 13.  On 16 June 2000 a third party intervener, D.S., who had in the meantime bought the apartment subject to the proceedings from the first defendant, joined the proceedings by submitting a written statement. 14.  On 1 March 2002 the third party intervener lodged a supervisory appeal submitting inter alia that since the proceedings were still pending she was unable to dispose of the apartment. 15.  The first hearing was scheduled for 13 February 2004 but was subsequently postponed to 26 March 2004. 16.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant lodged written submissions raising the value of the claim to SIT 1,100,000 (approximately EUR 4,600). 17.  On 26 March 2004 the first main hearing was held. The court adopted a decision, modifying the value of the claim as requested by the applicant. 18.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant lodged a request for an interim order. 19.  Between 9 April 2004 and 4 June 2004 three further main hearings were held. On the latter date the court issued its judgment partially upholding the applicant’s claim. The decision was served personally on the applicant and the second defendant and to the first defendant and the third party by posting it on the court’s notice board. 20.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. 21.  On 7 December 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court returned the file to the first instance court instructing the court that the first defendant should be served the documents related to the appeal in accordance with Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Act and that the court should also decide on the applicant’s request for an interim order. 22.  On 6 January 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court requested the applicant to pay the court’s fees and supplement her proposal to issue an interim order. 23.  On 3 March 2006 the judgment of 4 June 2004 and the applicant’s appeal were served on the first defendant by posting them on the court’s notice board. 24.  On 20 March 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim order. The applicant appealed. 25.  On 21 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the judgment of 4 June 2004 and the decision of 20 March 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 26.  On 23 October 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law on procedural grounds. It held that the Ljubljana Local Court wrongly applied the Civil Procedure Act in allowing a modification of the disputed value at a later stage of the proceedings. It therefore considered as the disputed value the value that had been indicated by the applicant in her claim and accordingly concluded that therefore the disputed value had not reached the threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. 27.  On 26 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 December 2009.