5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Stara Zagora. 6.  The applicant worked as head teacher in a secondary school in Stara Zagora. 7.  On 19 July 2002 the head of the Regional Education Inspectorate (“the REI”) of the Ministry of Education dismissed the applicant on disciplinary grounds. 8.  The applicant brought a claim against the REI, challenging the order for her dismissal and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost earnings. 9.  By a judgment of 2 April 2003 the Stara Zagora District Court (Районен съд) allowed the applicant’s claims. That judgment was upheld by the Stara Zagora Regional Court (Окръжен съд) and the Supreme Court of Cassation on 18 July 2003 and 24 November 2005 respectively. In the course of the proceedings, neither the opposing party nor any of the courts raised any doubts as to whether the REI was the correct defendant in the case. 10.  Following the entry into force of the judgment of 24 November 2005, the applicant applied to take up her duties on 6 December 2005. On the same day a new order for her dismissal was issued by the head of the REI. 11.  On an unspecified date, at the latest in January 2006, the applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal order with the Stara Zagora District Court, challenging its lawfulness, and seeking reinstatement to her previous post and compensation for loss of income. It appears from the case file that at the first court hearing, the date of which was not specified, the REI argued that it was not the proper defendant in the case and that the claims had to be addressed to the secondary school in which the applicant had been working prior to her dismissal. The REI submitted that Article 61 § 2 of the Labour Code and section 37(4) of the Education Act provided that the applicant’s employer was the school. 12.  During a court hearing on 12 April 2006 the District Court ruled in favour of the objection, and, reasoning that the proper defendant in the case was the school, discontinued the proceedings. 13.  The applicant appealed against that decision before the Stara Zagora Regional Court. 14.  On 26 May 2006 the Regional Court quashed the decision of the lower court, explicitly stating that the proper defendant in the applicant’s case was the REI. It remitted the case to the first-instance court for examination on the merits. 15.  By a judgment of 8 December 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claims. 16.  Following an appeal lodged by the REI, on 27 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. 17.  The REI lodged an appeal on points of law. On 16 April 2008 the Plovdiv Appeal Court (Апелативен съд), sitting as a court of cassation according to a legislative amendment entered into force in July 2007, quashed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the applicant’s claims. It found that the REI was not the applicant’s employer under the law and was not, therefore, the proper defendant in the case. Thus, the claims brought against it were unfounded. The court ruled that the applicant’s claims had to be brought against the school in which she had been working prior to her dismissal, as that school was her employer.