4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Senec. 5.  On 10 February 1999 a company sued the applicant for a sum of money which he allegedly owed for the lease of his flat and for services provided by the company. 6.  On 27 May 1999 the Bratislava III District Court issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros to the plaintiff. 7.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant challenged the payment order. The case was therefore to be heard by the first instance court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8.  The District Court held hearings on 18 May 2000, on 12 June 2000, on 11 September 2000 and on 9 October 2000. At the last mentioned hearing the plaintiff extended the action. 9.  On 27 March 2003 the District Court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion. 10.  On 1 December 2003 the judge instructed the court’s registry to transmit the file to the expert. The expert received the file on 29 December 2003. He submitted his opinion to the court on 24 February 2004. 11.  On 4 May 2004 the District Court decided on the expert’s fee. The expert opinion was delivered to the parties on 13 and 14 May 2004 respectively. On 1 June 2004 the applicant submitted his comments on it. 12.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 27 September 2004 and on 11 October 2004. A hearing scheduled for 2 December 2004 was adjourned. 13.  In May 2005 the applicant informed the Court that there had been no further progress in the case. 14.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about the length of proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He claimed, inter alia, 800,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 15.  On 13 August 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delays. The decision stated that the District Court had remained inactive between 15 June 1999 and 28 January 2000, that is for more than 7 months, and also between 9 October 2000 and 27 March 2003, that is for more than 29 months. 16.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation noting that the applicant had by his conduct considerably contributed to the fact that the dispute had come into being and that the proceedings had been protracted, since in particular he had not regularly paid the sums due and the company therefore had to extend the action. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs related to the constitutional proceedings to the applicant.