4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Hrob. 5.  On 25 November 1992 the applicant applied under the Land Ownership Act to the Teplice Land Office (pozemkový úřad) for the restitution of a building and plot of land in Hrob, which had been confiscated from her parents in 1961. On 10 August 1993 some documents identifying the property at issue, prepared ex officio by the Teplice Land Registry (katastrální úřad) because the applicant had not included them with her original restitution claim, were sent to her. 6.  On 15 October 1993 she requested the current owner, the District Housing Association (okresní bytový podnik)[1], a State-owned entity, to restore the property to her. Upon its refusal, she requested the Land Office to commence restitution proceedings on 19 November 1993. 7.   On 7 December 1993 the applicant was requested to submit supplementary documents. 8.  The District Housing Association, despite its knowledge of the applicant’s restitution claim, transferred the property to the Hrob Municipality, which on 11 January 1994 sold it to other individuals. 9.  On 24 February 1994 the Land Office interrupted the proceedings in order to appoint an expert, who drew up his opinion on 15 May 1994. In the meantime, on 10 March 1994, the Land Office had carried out an inspection of the site. 10.  On 8 September 1994 it granted the applicant’s restitution claim, with the exception of one of the buildings at issue. 11.  On 1 December 1994 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant’s appeal of 26 October 1994, quashed the Land Office’s decision and remitted the case to it, due to an insufficient establishment of the facts. 12.  On 3 July 1995 the Land Office granted the applicant’s restitution claim, except for the building which had been substantially rebuilt. 13.  On 29 November 1995 the Regional Court, on the Hrob Municipality’s appeal, quashed the Land Office’s decision and remitted the case to it, due to an insufficient establishment of the facts. 14.  On 7 April 1997 the Land Office dismissed the applicant’s restitution claim after obtaining an amended version of the expert opinion, on 12 November 1996, which had assessed the character of the building. 15.  On 7 April 1998 the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal sent to it on 7 May 1997, quashed the Land Office’s decision finding, inter alia, that the expert opinion had been drafted without the applicant’s participation, and that its conclusion had not been supported by objective measurements. It remitted the case to the Land Office. 16.  On 29 September 1998 the Land Office ordered a new expert opinion, which was submitted on 8 February 1999. 17.  On 19 April 1999 the Land Office granted the applicant’s restitution claim for the plot of land but not for the building since it had undergone substantial reconstruction. 18.  On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court, having received on 19 May 1999 the applicant’s appeal in which she complained of an unsatisfactory establishment of the facts, as well as incorrect expert opinions and assessment of evidence, upheld the Land Office’s decision, finding that the latter’s admission and assessment of the evidence and the decision were in accordance with the law. 19.  On 18 October 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) of 20 July 2001 against the Regional Court’s judgment as being manifestly ill-founded, concluding that the court had conducted the proceedings in accordance with the domestic law. On 22 October 2001 the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant.