5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Riga. 6.  On 17 October 2000 the Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work (Veselības un darbspēju ekspertīzes ārstu komisija) granted the applicant a disability status of category 3 (the least severe level of disability) on the grounds of a visual impairment. 7.  On 16 October 2001 following an examination the Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work declined the applicant’s request to prolong her disability status. 8.  On 9 November 2001 this decision was upheld by the State Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work (Veselības un darbspēju ekspertīzes ārstu valsts komisija, hereinafter ‑ the Commission) and on 5 December 2001 by an extended composition of that Commission. 9.  The applicant challenged the decision of the Commission before a court. On 22 April 2002 the Riga City Zemgale District Court declined the claim. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 30 July 2004 the Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of 5 December 2001 due to lack of reasoning and ordered the Commission to carry out a new examination. On 30 November 2004 this judgment was upheld by the Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court. 11.  On 11 January 2005, following a new examination by an extended composition, the Commission again refused to grant the applicant the status of a disabled person. 12.  On 9 January 2006 the applicant brought a claim to the Administrative District Court challenging the Commission’s decision and requesting to be granted the status of a disabled person from 16 October 2001. 13.  On 29 September 2006 the Administrative District Court declined the applicant’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the Regional Administrative Court. 14.  The Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court two times quashed the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court for its failure to follow the interpretation of the domestic law given by the Supreme Court. 15.  On 24 November 2010 the Regional Administrative Court declined the applicant’s claim, and on 14 March 2011 the Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court refused to institute cassation proceedings.