4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Prešov. 5.  In 1994 the applicant married Mr Š. with whom, in 1995, she had a daughter. Since October 1995 the applicant and Mr Š. had not lived in a common household. 6.  On 18 September 1996 the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) pronounced the dissolution of the applicant's marriage, entrusted the child into the applicant's care and ordered Mr Š. To contribute to the child's maintenance. The judgment became final and binding on 25 August 1997. 7.  On 22 March 1996 the applicant lodged an action against Mr Š. with the District Court. She sought a judicial order that he contribute to her maintenance as his spouse pursuant to Articles 91 et seq. of the Family Code (Low no. 94/1963 Coll., as amended). 8.  On 29 April 1996, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court granted the action. Mr Š. subsequently lodged an appeal. 9.  On 18 February 1997, following a hearing on the appeal held on the same day, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the District Court's judgment of 29 April 1996 in so far as it related to the period from 22 March to 31 May 1996. As to the following period, the Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the latter for a re‑examination. 10.  The District Court held 3 hearings between October 1997 and August 1998. 11.  On 17 September 1998, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action as regards the outstanding period, i.e. from 1 June 1996 to 25 August 1997, when the applicant's divorce had become legally binding. 12.  On 30 April 1999, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 September 1998 and remitted the case to the District Court instructing it to take further evidence. 13.  On 13 March 2002 the District Court ruled that, in the relevant period, Mr Š. had been obliged to contribute to the applicant's maintenance. It further determined the amount payable and ordered that he pay the amount due in instalments as from 1 April 2002. The District Court also ordered reimbursement of the applicant's legal costs. 14.  On 11 September 2002 the Regional Court dismissed both parties' appeals. 15.  On 30 October 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the District Court. She sought a judicial order that her ex‑husband pay her, on a monthly basis, an amount of money by way of contribution to her maintenance after divorce, pursuant to Articles 92 et seq. of the Family Code, as she was unable to provide for herself alone. 16.  The District Court held hearings on 16 February and 30 March 1998. 17.  On 30 April 1998 the District Court took a decision in the action. On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment on an appeal. 18.  On 16 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing. 19.  On 16 March 2000, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action. 20.  On 24 January 2001, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment of 16 March 2000 and remitted the case to the latter for re‑examination. The Regional Court found that, despite having been instructed to do so in the decision of 30 April 1999, the District Court had failed to examine the material situation of the defendant adequately. 21.  On 31 October 2002 the District Court ruled that the defendant had been obliged to contribute to the applicant's maintenance from 30 October 1997 onwards. The District Court further determined the amount payable each month and allowed the defendant to pay the arrears for the period from 30 October 1997 to 31 October 2002 in monthly instalments in addition to the ordinary monthly payments. 22.  On 23 June 2003, on the defendant's appeal, the Regional Court modified the judgment of 30 October 2002 by making a new detailed determination of the amounts which the defendant was to pay to the applicant in respect of the various periods. The judgment became final and binding on 29 July 2003. 23.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, lodged a petition (podnet) under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, as then in force, with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). She complained of the undue delays in the above two sets of proceedings and also in two other sets of proceedings. 24.  On 17 May 2001 the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay in her above actions of 1996 and 1997. The subject‑matters of those proceedings were not of a particular legal or factual complexity. The applicant's conduct was active and cooperative. The District Court had not dealt with the cases effectively. Both sets of proceedings under review were too lengthy in their entirety. However, at that time, the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw any legal consequences from the finding. In accordance with its established practice, when deciding on a fresh constitutional complaint (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution, as amended from January 2002, the Constitutional Court refrains from examining again delays in court proceedings which occurred in the period which the Constitutional Court has already reviewed in a previous decision.