5.  The applicants were spouses born in 1952 and 1954 respectively. In 2013 the first applicant died, following which the second applicant expressed the wish to continue the application both in her own name and in the name of her late husband. The second applicant lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 11 October 2002 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Bratislava V District Office of Investigation alleging that an individual, A., had obtained an amount of money from them in return for the promise of arranging for the renovation of the flat in which they lived, that she had failed to keep that promise, and that she had not even been in the possession of the appropriate business licence for so doing. They considered that the criminal offence of fraud could have been committed in that connection, alleged that they had suffered the equivalent of some 7,300 euros worth of damage, and submitted that A. had refused to compensate them. 7.  On 3 December 2002 the second applicant was questioned by an investigator. According to the transcript of the questioning, she inter alia referred to Article 43 of the 1961 Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the 1961 CCP” – see paragraph 19 below), submitted that she wished to join the proceedings as a civil party claiming damages, and proposed that the amount of the compensation be determined by a sworn expert. 8.  On 23 January 2003 a criminal investigation was opened into the suspicion of the offence of fraud having been committed by one or more persons unknown in connection with the events mentioned above. 9.  On 13 March 2003 the investigator appointed a sworn expert to establish the value of the pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the applicants. The expert filed his report on 22 May 2003. 10.  On 4 November 2004 A. was charged but the charges were quashed by the Bratislava V District Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) on 10 January 2005. The matter was thus remitted to the investigation stage. 11.  Meanwhile, on 3 January 2005, the District Office of the PPS had informed the applicants that unjustified delay had been established in the proceedings, that it was due to the existing caseload and the staffing situation, and that the investigator’s attention had been brought to the need to accelerate the proceedings. 12.  In a letter of 5 February 2005 the Bratislava Regional Office of the PPS responded to the applicants’ repeated complaint by accepting that there had been unjustified delay in the proceedings, which had been repeatedly indicated to the investigator. However, except for flagging up the delays to the investigator, notifying the investigator’s superior, and changing the investigator, the PPS had no means of ensuring acceleration of the proceedings. 13.  On 21 January 2008 the District Office of the PPS responded to a further complaint from the applicants by again accepting that the investigation was in general vitiated by significant delays. This had repeatedly been indicated to the investigator’s superior, but had not produced the expected improvement. The case had not been reassigned to another investigator because this did not appear to be efficient in view of the staff shortage. However, the investigator had again been reminded of the delays and if no improvement was to be seen, a new investigator would be appointed. 14.  On 14 January 2010 the investigator decided to terminate the proceedings. Referring to evidence from the second applicant, five witnesses and the expert, as well as to documentary evidence, he concluded that there was no criminal case to answer. This decision was upheld by the District Office of the PPS on 1 February 2010, following the applicants’ interlocutory appeal. No further appeal was available. 15.  Meanwhile, on 6 October 2009, the applicants had lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court. They challenged the length of the proceedings on their third-party claim for damages attached to the above criminal proceedings and alleged a violation of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. 16.  On 25 March 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As to the facts, it observed that the second applicant had attached their third-party claim for damages to the proceedings orally in the interview of 3 December 2002. As to the law, the Constitutional Court referred to the Court’s judgment in the case of Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia (no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005) and acknowledged that an aggrieved party (obeť) of a criminal offence who attached a third-party claim for damages (adhézny nárok) to the criminal proceedings was entitled to the guarantees of the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention. However, referring to unspecified practice of the ordinary courts and to the nature of things, the Constitutional Court held that it was a condition for the aggrieved party to benefit from the guarantees in question to have made the claim against a specific person and that that person could be identified no earlier than when charges were brought against him or her. The Constitutional Court further referred to its previous case-law on the subject and held specifically that the aggrieved party claiming damages in the criminal proceedings only benefited from the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 after a charge had been brought against a specific person. In that regard, the Constitutional Court noted that the charges against A. of 4 November 2004 had been quashed on 10 January 2005 (see paragraph 10 above). Therefore, at the time of the constitutional complaint, the applicants had no longer benefited from the constitutional guarantees relied on.
The decision was served on 12 May 2010 and no appeal lay against it.