5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kharkiv. 6.  On 14 June 2001 criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted for hooliganism. 7.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to abscond. 8.  On 1 August 2001 the applicant was committed for trial. 9.  On 7 September 2001 the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the Chervonozavodsky Court”) found the case ready for examination. 10.  On 24 September 2001 the President of the Chervonozavodsky Court allowed the applicant’s request to remove a judge in her case. 11.  On 4 December 2001 the President of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) changed the case’s territorial jurisdiction and referred it to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Zhovtnevy Court”). 12.  On 25 December 2001 the Zhovtnevy Court remitted the case to the Chervonozavodsky District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation. 13.  On 12 June 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling with minor changes. 14.  On 5 August 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Zhovtnevy Court. 15.  On 30 September 2002 the Zhovtnevy Court remitted the case to the Chervonozavodsky District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation. 16.  On 26 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for renewed consideration to the first instance court. 17.  On 29 April 2003 the Zhovtnevy Court found the case ready for examination. 18.  On 27 June 2003 the Zhovtnevy Court adjourned the proceedings untill 26 August 2003 due to the prosecutor’s absence. 19.  On 13 June 2006 the Zhovtnevy Court found the applicant guilty of hooliganism and sentenced her to three years’ suspended imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving her sentence since the charges against her had become time-barred. 20.  On 31 October 2006 and 17 January 2008 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment. 21.  Throughout the pre-trial investigation and the trial proceedings the applicant lodged some 211 complaints, motions, petitions, requests and appeals. She mainly complained about allegedly unlawful actions of the investigative authorities, the prosecutor’s office and the judges who considered her criminal case and challenged the procedural decisions taken by them. In particular, the applicant lodged 30 motions challenging the judge who considered her case, 5 motions challenging the prosecutor. 22.  In the course of the trial proceedings some nineteen hearings were adjourned since the court had to consider numerous requests, motions, petitions and complaints lodged by the applicant. Five adjournments were due to the applicant’s or her lawyer’s absence or the applicant’s requests for adjournment. Four hearings were adjourned on account of witnesses’ or victims’ failures to appear. Eleven hearings were adjourned since the judge was involved in other proceedings, and one hearing was adjourned on account of the judge’s illness.