4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. 5.  According to the applicant, on 19 June 2000 judges of the Prešov Regional Court decided on his appeal against the first-instance judgment notwithstanding that he had challenged them and no decision had been given on his request for their exclusion. 6.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment of 19 June 2000 in proceedings concerning his claim for compensation (equivalent of approximately 350 euros (EUR) plus default interest). In accordance with the relevant law, the applicant lodged the appeal on points of law with the Bardejov District Court, which was to complete the file prior to its submission to the Supreme Court for a decision on the appeal on points of law. 7.  On 1 April 2003 the District Court asked the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his appeal on points of law. The applicant requested that a lawyer be appointed to represent him in the cassation proceedings. 8.  On 28 May 2003 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee and appointed an advocate to represent him. 9.  On 10 September 2003 the District Court revoked the appointment of the above advocate as he had informed the court that he was the legal representative of the defendant. 10.  The District Court appointed another advocate to represent the applicant. The applicant and the advocate appealed as, in the past, the applicant had lodged a complaint against that advocate with the Slovak Bar Association and therefore the appointed advocate could not appropriately represent him. On 3 August 2004 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the decision to appoint the advocate. 11.  On 12 October 2004 the District Court appointed a different advocate to represent the applicant. The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision had been incorrect. On 11 March 2005 the District Court rectified a clerical error in the decision. On 27 May 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov upheld the above decisions. 12.  On 29 June 2005 the case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court. On 20 July 2005 the file was returned to the District Court as having been submitted prematurely. 13.  On 10 October 2005 the District Court invited the advocate appointed to represent the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in the applicant's appeal on points of law. 14.  On 17 October 2005 the advocate asked the applicant for cooperation in completing his appeal on points of law. She asked the applicant to come to her office on 21 October 2005. On 2 November 2005 the advocate informed the District Court that the applicant had refused to cooperate with her. 15.  On 19 January 2006 the Bardejov District Court sent the file to the Supreme Court with the explanation that it had not been possible to eliminate the shortcomings in the applicant's appeal on points of law despite the fact that an advocate had been appointed to represent the applicant. 16.  In a letter of 30 January 2006 the advocate stated that the applicant had not responded to her request for cooperation and asked him to submit to her all documents concerning the case. 17.  On 24 May 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law as formal shortcomings had not been eliminated. 18.  On 12 November 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay when dealing with his appeal on points of law. It noted that the President of the District Court had admitted that his court had remained inactive in the case from 2 October 2000 until 1 April 2003. 19.  The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without any further delay and to pay the applicant 10,000 Slovak korunas (SKK, the equivalent of EUR 243 at that time) as just satisfaction. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs of legal representation to the applicant.