5.  The applicant company is a private company that was set up in 2007 and has its registered office in Yerevan. 6.  On 7 May 2007 the applicant company and company S. concluded a contract, under which the applicant company had to carry out construction work on the premises of company H. 7.  On 18 January 2008 the applicant company initiated compensation proceedings against company S. in the Yerevan Civil Court (“the Civil Court”), arguing that it had completed the construction work as required by the contract of 7 May 2007, but company S. had failed to make full payment for the work. 8.  On 21 January 2008 the Civil Court admitted the applicant company’s claim. 9.  On 20 February 2008 the Civil Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work which the applicant company had carried out on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. The examination was assigned to the Bureau of Forensic Examinations under the Ministry of Justice (“the Bureau”). In particular, the court ordered the experts to measure the surface area of the construction work and assess the quality of the construction work carried out. 10.  On 11 March 2008 the expert in charge of conducting the forensic examination filed a letter with the Civil Court, stating that it was necessary for the Civil Court to ensure his access to the premises of company H. for the purposes of the examination, as that company was not a party to the civil proceedings. 11.  On 4 April 2008 the Civil Court resumed the proceedings and summoned company H. to the proceedings as a third party. 12.  On 15 May 2008 the Civil Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and again stayed the proceedings. 13.  On 28 October 2008 the expert concluded that, owing to the lack of opportunity to access the premises of company H., it had not been possible to carry out the forensic examination ordered by the Civil Court on 15 May 2008. 14.  On 19 November 2008 the Civil Court resumed the proceedings. 15.  On 19 February 2009 the Civil Court granted the applicant company’s claim. 16.  On 27 February 2009, due to reorganisation of the judiciary, the Civil Court decided to transfer the case to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan. 17.  On 4 March 2009 company S. appealed against the judgment of 19 February 2009. 18.  On 23 April 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case, reasoning, inter alia, that in the absence of an expert opinion on the questions posed by the Civil Court as regards the disputed construction work, that judgment was unfounded. 19.  On 29 July 2009 the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) took over the applicant company’s case. 20.  On 26 August 2009 the District Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. 21.  On 31 May 2010 the expert concluded that, owing to the lack of opportunity to access the premises of company H., it had not been possible to carry out the forensic examination ordered by the District Court on 26 August 2009. 22.  On 7 June 2010 the District Court resumed the proceedings. 23.  On 16 July 2010 the District Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. The court ordered that the forensic examination be carried out with the help of the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”). It is unclear what the outcome of that order was. 24.  On 21 June 2012 the expert concluded that, owing to the lack of access to the premises of company H., it had not been possible to carry out the forensic examination ordered by the District Court on 16 July 2010. 25.  On 27 June 2012 the District Court resumed the proceedings. 26.  On 3 October 2012 the applicant company filed additional submissions with the District Court. 27.  On the same date the District Court ordered a forensic technical examination of the construction work on the premises of company H., and stayed the proceedings. 28.  On 25 November and 24 December 2014 the applicant company submitted a letter to the Bureau, enquiring about the progress of the examination ordered by the District Court. 29.  On 27 December 2014 the Bureau responded by stating that the examination which had been ordered had not been carried out due to the lack of an expert in the relevant field. The Bureau also noted that it had already recruited and trained relevant experts, and the examination was expected to be carried out in January 2015. 30.  On 28 February 2015 the applicant company submitted another letter to the Bureau, reminding it that the examination had not yet been carried out and informing it about the delay that the lack of an expert examination had caused in the civil proceedings. 31.  On 5 May 2015 the applicant company submitted a letter to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the delay in the civil proceedings and requesting that it take measures to expedite them. 32.  On 20 May 2015 the Minister of Justice responded by stating that even though it would take one day to carry out the expert examination and approximately five days to complete the report, the examination had not been carried out for reasons such as the lack of an expert in the Bureau, the expert’s inability to access the premises of company H., the excessive workload in the Bureau, and so on. The Minister concluded by stating that the examination could be carried out by the Bureau, provided that the expert was granted access to the premises concerned. 33.  On 30 June 2015, apparently after performing the technical examination, the Bureau sent the relevant expert opinion to the District Court. 34.  On 9 July 2015 the District Court resumed the proceedings. 35.  The District Court held a number of hearings in 2015 and 2016, and on 9 June and 2 August 2016 it also decided to conduct a new examination of the case. 36.  On 10 October 2016 the District Court granted the applicant company’s claim in part. 37.  On 15 December 2016 company S. appealed against that judgment. 38.  On 23 March 2017 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the contested judgment. 39.  No appeal on points of law was lodged against the decision of 23 March 2017, which became final.