4.  The applicant was born in born in 1951 and lives in Mykolayv. 5.  In 1991-1996 the applicant was employed with a private company N., which provided maintenance services for student dormitories of the Ukrainian State Marine Technical University (Український державний морський технічний університет, hereafter “the USMTU”). In 1996 the USMTU, following a year's litigation with N., terminated their contract and re‑employed most of N.'s former employees, but not the applicant. 6.  In May 1996 the applicant sued N. and the USMTU for unfair dismissal. On 26 July 1996 the Tsentralny District Court of Mykolayv (Місцевий суд Центрального районну м. Миколаєва, hereafter “the District Court”) approved a settlement between the parties and discontinued the proceedings. 7.  On 4 September 2001 the District Court, at the applicant's request, reopened the proceedings on the ground of new circumstances. In the course of the proceedings the applicant dropped her claims against N. 8.  On 24 September 2001 the District Court, composed of a single judge, Mr A., granted the applicant's claim against the USMTU and ordered her immediate reinstatement. The USMTU appealed. 9.  On 27 February 2002 the Mykolayv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Миколаївської області, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration by a different judge. 10.  The case was again considered by Judge A., who on 12 July 2002 rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant filed an appeal. On 25 September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment rejecting the applicant's claim. The question of the competence of Judge A. to re-examine the case on the merits was not addressed in this decision. 11.  The applicant appealed in cassation arguing, inter alia, that her case had been heard by a judge who was not competent. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, finding that no procedural or substantive breaches had occurred before the lower courts. 12.  In October 2002 the USMTU applied to the District Court for permission not to comply with its order of 24 September 2001 to reinstate the applicant. On 24 December 2002 the District Court found that the impugned order had lost its validity on 27 February 2002, when the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on the basis of which it had been issued. The court also invited the USMTU “to resolve the issue of [the applicant's] dismissal”. The applicant appealed. 13.  On 13 March 2003 the Court of Appeal excluded from the judgment the reference to the need to resolve the issue of the applicant's dismissal and upheld the remainder of the District Court's findings. On 19 May 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation. 14.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant was dismissed from the USMTU. She brought a claim for reinstatement and loss of earnings. On 23 April 2003 the District Court rejected her claim, noting that the applicant had been employed with the USMTU pursuant to the reinstatement order of 24 September 2001, which had lost its validity on 27 February 2002. 15.  The applicant's appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 22 July 2003 and by the Supreme Court on 31 October 2003. 16.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the USMTU in which she claimed that her salary had not been paid to her in full. On 1 December 2003 rejected this claim as unsubstantiated. On 13 February 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against this judgment.