4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Krasnogorsk, the Moscow Region. 5.  In May 1995 the applicant signed a contract with a building partnership. Under the terms of the contract the applicant was obliged to pay the company a certain sum, and the company was obliged to provide the applicant with a garage. 6.  Since the company failed to comply with its obligation, on 4 December 1996 the applicant brought court proceedings seeking to oblige the company to provide her with a garage and compensate her for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 7.  On 19 March 1997 the Krasnogorsk Town Court scheduled a hearing for 31 March 1997. 8.  In the period between 31 March 1997 and 29 October 1997 the hearing was adjourned on two occasions because of the absence of the parties, and on two occasions because the judge was sitting in unrelated proceedings. 9.  On 29 October 1997 the applicant's case was joined to twenty-four similar cases initiated by other plaintiffs against the same defendant, and the hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date. 10.  On 4 December 1997 the applicant modified her claims in so far as they concerned the amount of interest and compensation for legal costs to be paid to her by the defendant. 11.  Following a request by the parties, on 9 December 1997 the hearing was adjourned until 14 January 1998. 12.  On 14 January 1998 some of the cases were assigned to be examined separately. The hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date. 13.  On 18 February 1998 the hearing was adjourned until 18 March 1998 because the judge was sitting in unrelated proceedings. 14.  On 18 March 1998 the Krasnogorsk Town Court examined the merits of the applicant's claim and dismissed it. The judgment was given in the applicant's absence, and she learned of it from other plaintiffs on 28 May 1998, that is, after the procedural time-limit for appealing had already expired. 15.  On 8 October 1998 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 March 1998 in respect of all the plaintiffs except the applicant. 16.  The applicant applied for the restoration of the procedural time-limit for appeal against the judgment of 18 March 1998, and on 15 February 1999 her request was granted. 17.  On 28 April 1999 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 18 March 1998 in respect of the applicant because it had been given in her absence. 18.  On 16 June 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 8 October 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination. 19.  On 2 August 1999 the case in respect of all the plaintiffs, including the applicant, was submitted to the Krasnogorsk Town Court. 20.  On 5 October 1999 the hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date because the applicant had failed to appear. 21.  On 15 November 1999 the proceedings were suspended until an unspecified date because the defendant's representative was ill. 22.  Following a complaint by the applicant, on 10 April 2000 the proceedings were resumed, and a hearing was scheduled for 5 May 2000. 23.  On 5 May 2000 the Krasnogorsk Town Court again dismissed the applicant's claims. On 4 June 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 24.  Following a request filed by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia on behalf of the applicant and other plaintiffs, on 25 July 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 May 2000, as upheld on 4 June 2000, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the case for fresh examination. 25.  The case file was remitted to the Krasnogorskiy Town Court on 9 August 2001. 26.  During the period between 23 April and 30 September 2002 hearings were adjourned on four occasions owing to the defendant's failure to appear before the court. 27.  On 30 September 2002 a hearing was adjourned until 24 October 2002, on the court's initiative, in view of the necessity to obtain certain documents. 28.  On 24 October 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 22 November 2002, on the request of the defendant, for friendly-settlement negotiations. 29.  On 19 November 2002 the applicant asked the court to attach the defendant's property as a security measure. 30.  Following a request by the applicant, on 22 November 2002 the applicant's case was disjoined from the cases lodged by the other plaintiffs. The hearing was adjourned until 27 March 2003. 31.  On 27 March 2003 the applicant amended her claims. The hearing was adjourned until 3 June 2003 because of the necessity to obtain certain documents and because of a further amendment to the applicant's claims. 32.  In the period between 3 June and 21 October 2003, and between 21 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 hearings were adjourned on four occasions because the defendant had failed to appear before the court. 33.  On 20 August 2004 the Krasnogorsk Town Court refused to entertain the applicant's action in view of her failure to appear at the hearings of 23 July and 20 August 2004. 34.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 26 April 2005 the Krasnogorsk Town Court quashed its decision of 20 August 2004, because there was no information in the case file recording that the applicant had been notified of the hearings of 23 July and 20 August 2004. The next hearing was set for 27 May 2005. 35.  On 27 May 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 8 July 2005 because the judge was sitting in unrelated proceedings. 36.  On 8 July 2005 the applicant challenged the judge, without success. The hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date. 37.  On 5 August 2005 the case was assigned to a different judge and a hearing was fixed for 25 October 2005. 38.  On 6 December 2005 the applicant amended her claims in so far as they concerned the amount to be paid to her in interest and in respect of non-pecuniary damage by the defendant. 39.  In the period between 7 December 2005 and 26 January 2006 hearings were adjourned on two occasions because the defendant had failed to appear. 40.  On 26 January 2006 the applicant waived some of her claims. The hearing was adjourned until 6 February 2006. 41.  On 6 February 2006 the Krasnogorsk Town Court partly granted the applicant's claims. The applicant appealed. 42.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 18 July 2006. 43.  On 18 July 2006 the appeal hearing was adjourned until 14 August 2006 since both parties had failed to appear and the case file contained no proof that they had been properly notified of it. 44.  On 14 August 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.