4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Pečovská Nová Ves. 5.  On 16 February 1996 the Prešov District Court delivered a judgment in an inheritance dispute. The judgment became final on 14 March 1996. 6.  On 28 August 1996 the Košice Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal as lodged by a person who lacked standing in the proceedings. 7.  On 5 May 2001 the applicant sought a determination of the ownership rights in respect of a plot of land which had also been the subject matter of the above inheritance proceedings. 8.  On 26 November 2003 the Prešov District Court dismissed his claim and the judgment was upheld by the Prešov Regional Court on 7 December 2005. 9.  On 13 April 2006 the district court transmitted the case file to the Supreme Court for a decision on the applicant's appeal on points of law. On 22 May 2006 the Supreme Court returned the case file to the district court as having been transmitted prematurely. The Supreme Court stated that the judgment of 7 December 2005 had not been served on one of the defendants and, therefore, had not become final. It further stated that the district court should decide whether to grant the applicant exemption from his obligation to pay court fees and to instruct the applicant to eliminate shortcomings in his appeal on points of law. 10.  On 23 and 26 June and 6 October 2006 the applicant amended his appeal on points of law. On 25 July the district court exempted the applicant from his obligation to pay court fees. On 14 October 2006 the judgment was served on the defendant and became final. 11.  On 13 November 2006 the case file was again transmitted to the Supreme Court. On 19 March 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law. The decision became final on 4 May 2007. 12.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant complained about a violation of his right to judicial protection and to a “fair trial” within a “reasonable time” as a result of (i) the course of the above sets of proceedings and (ii) the judgments of the district court of 16 February 1996 and of the regional court of 7 December 2005. 13.  On 22 November 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint for various reasons. As to the inheritance proceedings, the complaint was rejected as being belated. 14.  As to the civil proceedings, the Constitutional Court noted that at the time of lodging the constitutional complaint the judgment of the regional court had not become final as it had not yet been served on one of the parties to the proceedings. However, the Constitutional Court held that the appellate court had already delivered its judgment and thus the applicant's legal uncertainty had been eliminated at the time of lodging his constitutional complaint. Therefore, the Constitutional Court rejected the length of proceedings complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. 15.  It rejected the complaint about unfairness as being manifestly ill‑founded, holding that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the course of the proceedings before the regional court.