5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Buseck. 6.  In 2003, the applicant purchased one of four residential property units in a shared complex, into which she moved with her family. 7.  In January 2005, the applicant and the owners of the other three properties instigated independent evidentiary proceedings before the Regional Court against the property developers on the basis of alleged defects in the residential property units, in particular the water drainage system. On 25 February 2005 the court ordered an expert report from H.K., an expert in residential buildings; H.K. wrote a report dated 16 July 2005 and presented his findings to the court, most recently in a hearing held on 30 March 2007. 8.  On 23 June 2007 the applicant instigated proceedings against the property developer seeking compensation for alleged defects in her residential unit – namely, defects in the drainage system, together with defects in other parts of the building which had led to damp and mold on the walls. She sought compensation of roughly 17,000 Euros (EUR). 9.  Over the following months, after the applicant had made an advance payment on the court fees, the Regional Court forwarded to the other parties to the proceedings the applicant’s statement of claim and the defendants’ statement of defence; extended the deadline for the applicant to make further submissions; forwarded the submissions of the applicant’s neighbours (in which they (i) declared their wish to join the proceedings by way of intervention and (ii) sought EUR 8,000 in damages); held an oral hearing, in which it discussed the factual and legal situation and suggested a friendly settlement; waited for the applicant to propose the basis for a friendly settlement agreement; and forwarded further submissions made by the parties. 10.  On 17 March 2008 after the applicant’s final rejection of a friendly‑settlement proposal, the Regional Court ordered an expert opinion from H.K., who had already been involved in the independent evidentiary proceedings. In the following weeks, the applicant complained about the ordering of the expert opinion and challenged H.K.’s impartiality. On 26 June 2008 after obtaining further submissions from the parties and the interveners, the Regional Court once again suggested a friendly settlement. On the following day, it sent the case file to H.K. The parties several times exchanged submissions and suggestions regarding the basis for a friendly settlement. On 14 July 2008 H.K. invited the parties to participate in an onsite visit, which took place on 28 August 2008. Subsequently, H.K. informed the parties that another onsite visit was necessary; this finally took place on 22 October 2008. 11.  On 5 January 2009 the Regional Court requested H.K. for a progress report; H.K. replied to that request by stating that he needed to undergo urgent medical surgery, which he assumed would result in a delay of at least eight weeks. On 11 February 2009 the wife of H.K. informed the Regional Court that there would be a further delay of at least six months, due to the illness of her husband. The Regional Court informed the parties of this and invited them to submit comments. The applicant requested a replacement for H.K. 12.  On 23 February 2009 the Regional Court dismissed H.K. and ordered the return of the case file. On 31 March 2009, H.K. returned the file. On 12 May 2009 the Regional Court asked the Chamber of Commerce to suggest potential replacement experts. On 26 May 2009 the Chamber of Commerce suggested two experts, one of whom was G.K. On the same day, the Regional Court forwarded those suggestions to the parties. On 15 June 2009 the defendants rejected both suggestions. On 17 June 2009 the applicant made further submissions and applied for permission to inspect the case file. On 2 July 2009 the applicant’s representative returned the file to the court. On 7 July 2009 the Regional Court asked for further advance payments on the court fees, which the applicant paid on 3 August 2009. On 7 August 2009 the Regional Court made a suggestion regarding how to proceed with regard to the expert. On 20 August 2009 the applicant agreed. On the same day, the Regional Court forwarded to the defendant the applicant’s statement that he agreed to the proposed expert. 13.  On 25 September 2009 the Regional Court amended the decision to order an expert opinion (see paragraph 10 above) and ordered an expert opinion from G.K. (instead of H.K.). The following four months were dominated by a dispute between G.K., the Regional Court and the applicant about the amount due in further advance payments of court fees; during that dispute various submissions and objections were made. The dispute lasted until the middle of January 2010. 14.  On 28 May 2010 the Regional Court asked G.K. for a progress report. On 26 June 2010 G.K.’s office informed the Regional Court that the progress report would only be submitted in the twenty-eighth calendar week (12-18 July 2010). On 10 August 2010 the Regional Court again asked G.K. for a progress report. On 31 August 2010 G.K. informed the Regional Court that he was overloaded with work and suggested that the court order the opinion from H.K. (the original expert), to which the parties to the proceedings agreed. 15.  On 21 September 2010 the Regional Court ordered the opinion from H.K. 16.  On 30 September 2010, H.K. invited the parties to participate in another onsite visit, which was scheduled for 28 October 2010. However, the visit had to be rescheduled several times – once because the defendants were unable to attend and three times because the applicant was unable to attend; eventually the visit took place on 17 January 2011. On 4 May 2011, the applicant complained about the length of time it was taking for the expert to prepare his opinion. 17.  On 9 May 2011, the Regional Court asked H.K. for a progress report. On 18 May 2011, H.K. informed the Court that the opinion would be provided in the twenty-second calendar week (30 May-5 June 2011). On 5 August 2011, H.K. provided his opinion in written form. 18.  On 8 August 2011 the Regional Court forwarded the expert opinion to the parties and asked them to submit comments within five weeks. On 30 August 2011 the applicant lodged an objection to the method of calculating the fee for the expert opinion and applied for an extension of the deadline in order to be able to prepare substantial submissions in the light of the content of the expert opinion. On 10 October 2010 the applicant submitted substantial reasoning for her objection and made substantial submissions in the light of the expert opinion. The Regional Court also invited H.K. to submit comments. 19.  On 5 December 2011 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s objection regarding the method of calculating the fee for the expert opinion. On 20 December 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision and, on 24 January 2012, submitted arguments supporting her appeal. On 12 March 2012 the Court of Appeal ruled that the fee for the expert opinion had been calculated wrongly and annulled the decision setting out that fee. 20.  On 11 May 2012 the Regional Court asked H.K. for his views on the comments of the parties regarding his expert opinion. On 24 May 2012 H.K.’s wife informed the Regional Court that he had fallen ill, again, and that it was unclear when he would recover. On 29 May 2012 the Regional Court forwarded that information to the parties and invited them to submit comments. On 22 June 2012 the applicant applied for an extension of the deadline for the submission of comments. On 3 July 2012 the applicant applied to be allowed to inspect the case file. 21.  On 24 July 2012 the Regional Court scheduled an oral hearing for 12 October 2012. 22.  On 12 October 2012 the oral hearing took place and the parties agreed on a friendly settlement. 23.  On 23 July 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Court of Appeal in which she sought compensation, alleging that the civil proceedings had been excessively lengthy. 24.  On 30 January 2013 the Court of Appeal rejected the complaint as unfounded. It ruled – explicitly referring to section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act (see § 18 below), as well as Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and judgments of the Court – that the proceedings before the Regional Court had not been unreasonably long. 25.  The Court of Appeal ruled that any assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings had to start with the principle that a court must conduct proceedings expeditiously. That court had to make use of all available options in order to expedite the proceedings in question. A lengthening of the proceedings by the court would not give rise to a compensation claim if it had been based on a reasonable legal position and had taken place in accordance with the rules of procedure. It had to be established whether or not there had been a delay which, at least in principle, constituted grounds for a claim for compensation; different delays at different stages of the proceedings had to be added together and calculated as one single figure. Lastly, an overall assessment of whether the length of proceedings had been reasonable had to be carried out, with regard being paid to the circumstances of the case – in particular the complexity and difficulty of the proceedings. 26.  In application of these principles, the Court of Appeal assessed all phases of the proceedings and reasoned that the Regional Court had generally expedited the proceedings sufficiently and that it had caused a delay only in the summer of 2010 because it had failed to sufficiently instruct the expert at the time in question and had failed to undertake the measures necessary to ensure that the expert submitted his opinion in good time. Had the court done so, the expert’s excessive workload would have become apparent and a different expert could have been appointed earlier. Furthermore, it had to be taken into account that the proceedings had been complex; this had in particular been due to the complexity of the relevant facts and the difficulty in gathering evidence. Moreover, there had been three intervening parties on the side of the applicant, which had contributed substantially to the length of the proceedings. In addition, the applicant had repeatedly lodged applications, objections and appeals throughout the proceedings, and this had also substantially contributed to the length of the proceedings. Finally, the Court of Appeal took into account that the applicant herself attributed substantial importance to the proceedings, for both financial and health reasons. Nevertheless, viewed overall, the length of the proceedings did not appear unreasonably long. 27.  On 5 December 2013 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on points of law. It found the judgment of 30 January 2013 to be in line with section 198 of the Courts Constitution Act, as well as with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 28.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint; on 3 February 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept the constitutional complaint for adjudication, without giving any reasons for its decision (2 BvR 157/14).