4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tatranská Štrba. 5.  On 11 June 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Poprad District Court. He claimed compensation for loss of salary on the ground that he had been unlawfully dismissed from a co-operative. 6.  On 11 November 1996 the District Court dismissed the action after having held several hearings. The applicant appealed. 7.  On 13 February 1998 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment. 8.  On 11 June 1998 the Prešov Regional Court excluded the District Court judge dealing with the case. 9.  After having held several hearings and having taken additional evidence, the Poprad District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 25 May 2001. On 2 July 2001 the applicant appealed. 10.  On 4 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 25 May 2001. 11.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision. On 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. In its decision the Supreme Court noted that the first‑instance judgment had to be quashed as the District Court had disregarded the legal opinion earlier expressed by the court of appeal by which it was bound. 12.  On 4 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits of the case. The court ordered the defendant to pay the equivalent of approximately 6,400 euros to the applicant in compensation for loss of salary for the period from 13 February 1992 to 31 December 1997. The defendant appealed on 1 December 2004. 13.  On 28 April 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov dismissed the appeal as having been lodged out of time. The defendant filed an appeal on points of law. 14.  On 22 November 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision of 28 April 2005 as being erroneous. 15.  The parties submitted no information about any further developments in the case. 16.  On 4 December 1992 the applicant filed an action against a co‑operative with the Poprad District Court. He claimed compensation for damage relating to his dismissal from a job. 17.  On an unspecified date the case file was submitted to the Ministry of Justice. It was returned to the District Court on 26 October 1995. 18.  Several hearings were held in 1996 and the District Court dismissed the action on 27 November 1996. The judgment was served on 28 February 1997, and the applicant appealed on 13 March 1997. 19.  On 3 December 1997 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment. 20.  On 11 June 1998 the Prešov Regional Court excluded the District Court judge from dealing with the case at her own request. 21.  On 28 May 1999 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim relating to salary. 22.  On 4 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits of the case. It ordered the defendant to pay the equivalent of approximately 1,700 euros plus default interest in damages to the applicant. The defendant appealed on 1 December 2004. 23.  On 22 August 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov dismissed the appeal as having been filed out of time. 24.  In 2003 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution. He alleged that the Poprad District Court had violated his constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay in the above two sets of proceedings. He also claimed 500,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in just satisfaction. 25.  On 14 November 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible. 26.  On 18 February 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated by the Poprad District Court in both sets of proceedings. 27.  As regards the proceedings concerning compensation for loss of salary, the Constitutional Court noted that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant had not in any substantial manner contributed to their length. The court further found that undue delays had occurred between 16 May 1993 and 26 October 1995, that is a period of more than two years and five months. Another delay occurred between 11 June 1998 and 26 April 1999. The Constitutional Court also noted that in its decision of 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court found that the District Court had disregarded the legal opinion of the court of appeal and that its judgment had therefore to be quashed. The Constitutional Court concluded that the overall length of the proceedings was in any event excessive. 28.  As regards the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages, the Constitutional Court found that the case was not complex and that no delays were imputable to the applicant. The overall length of the proceedings was excessive due to the manner in which the District Court had dealt with the case. 29.  In its finding the Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 120,000 (the equivalent of 2,965 euros at that time) in just satisfaction in respect of both sets of proceedings which the District Court was obliged to pay within two months from the date of service of the decision. The Constitutional Court also ordered the Poprad District Court to reimburse the costs of the constitutional proceedings and to proceed with both cases without further delay.