5.  On 24 February 1999 the applicant claimed before the Prešov District Court that the maintenance which her former husband had been earlier ordered to pay in respect of their two minor children should be increased. 6.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 24 May 2000. 7.  On 1 June 2000 the Constitutional Court found that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have her case examined without undue delay. In its finding, the Constitutional Court held, in particular, that what was at stake for the applicant required special diligence and that the District Court had remained inactive for approximately fifteen months. The Constitutional Court considered irrelevant that the delay was due to the heavy workload of the judges. 8.  On 8 November 2000 the Prešov District Court increased the maintenance due by the applicant’s former husband with retroactive effect. 9.  The applicant appealed and claimed that the increase awarded should be higher. 10.  On 31 May 2001 the Prešov Regional Court delivered a judgment by which it increased the sums which the applicant’s former husband was to pay. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 25 July 2001.