4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Palarikovo. 5.  The applicant was employed in a private joint-stock company, R. The employer published a daily newspaper ND. The applicant was assigned to the post of head of the newspaper’s secretariat. 6.  On 29 November 2000 R. abolished the applicant’s post and on 8 January 2001 it sent him a notice terminating his employment. 7.  R. subsequently sent the applicant another notice terminating his employment with immediate effect. The applicant was required to leave his job and has not worked for R. ever since. 8.  The termination of the applicant’s employment with immediate effect was declared null and void in a separate set of proceedings which are not the subject-matter of the present application. 9.  In 2004 R. ceased publishing ND, started to discontinue other activities and relocated. R now exists on paper only. 10.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant brought an action against R. in the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) to have the termination of his contract of employment in January 2000 declared null and void. He later submitted a claim for damages. 11.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant supplemented his statement of claim and submitted new evidence on numerous occasions. 12.  On 11 January 2002 the District Court requested the defendant’s observations in reply. The defendant submitted them on 28 August 2002. 13.  On 5 November and 10 December 2002 the District Court held hearings. Following the latter hearing, on the same day, it ruled that the termination of the applicant’s employment was null and void. The defendant appealed to the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd). 14.  On 30 December 2002 the applicant requested that the defendant be ordered to pay him a part of his claim for damages by way of an interim measure. The request was dismissed on 30 January 2003 and the applicant appealed. 15.  On 25 June 2003 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it quashed the judgment of 10 December 2002 and upheld the decision of 30 January 2003 concerning the refusal of an interim measure. 16.  Between 11 November 2003 and 28 May 2004 the District Court held 4 hearings. During this period the applicant on two occasions requested interim measures ordering the defendant to pay a part of his claim for damages. His request of 18 November 2003 was dismissed on 11 December 2003 and the proceedings in respect of his request of 24 March 2004 were discontinued on 31 March 2004. 17.  On 18 November 2003 the applicant challenged the District Court for bias. The challenge was dismissed by the Regional Court on 2 December 2003. 18.  On 28 May 2004 the District Court again declared the applicant’s dismissal null and void. The defendant appealed. 19.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant requested an interim measure to freeze the defendant’s assets pending the outcome of the proceedings. He argued that the defendant had ceased publishing the newspaper ND and had started dissipating its assets in order to avoid criminal prosecution (see below) and to prevent enforcement of the final judgment in the present proceedings. The applicant lodged another request for an interim measure on 18 August 2004. 20.  On 8 September 2004 the District Court dismissed the request as unsubstantiated. 21.  A hearing of the defendant’s appeal against the judgment of 28 May 2004 was scheduled for 14 April 2005 but had to be adjourned due to the absence of the president of the Regional Court’s chamber for health reasons. 22.  On 28 April 2005 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it upheld the judgment of 28 May 2004. At the same time, the Regional Court ruled that its judgment could be appealed on points of law (dovolanie) as the matter concerned a legal issue of particular importance within the meaning of Article 238 § 3 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 23.  On 8 June 2005 R. lodged an appeal on points of law. The proceedings were discontinued by the District Court on 18 July 2005 on the ground that R. had failed to pay court fees. The decision was upheld on appeal on 31 October 2005. 24.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant commissioned a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor) to enforce the judgment of 28 May 2004. 25.  The enforcement proceedings formally commenced but, in a letter of 4 August 2005, the enforcement officer informed the applicant that it had proved impossible to trace R., its representatives and its assets. He proposed that the applicant withdraw his enforcement petition. 26.  On 4 July 2006 the District Court dismissed a motion by the enforcement officer that the proceedings be discontinued ex officio. It was observed that the applicant disagreed with the discontinuation and that he had identified executable assets belonging to the defendant.
The enforcement is still pending. 27.  On 3 January 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He complained of the length of the proceedings in the action brought on 11 June 2001 before both the District Court and the Regional Court and claimed 1,000,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in damages. 28.  On 16 March and 17 August 2005, respectively, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and held a public hearing. 29.  On 12 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s rights to a hearing “without undue delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to pay the applicant SKK 20,000[2] by way of just satisfaction in respect of his non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse his legal costs. The remainder of the applicant’s constitutional complaint was dismissed.
The Constitutional Court found that the subject-matter of the proceedings was not of any particular legal or factual complexity. No substantial delays could be imputed to the applicant. Although the Constitutional Court found no specific instances of significant inactivity on the part of the District Court, it held that the way in which the District Court had conducted the proceedings had been, in general, inefficient. The Constitutional Court found no violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy trial in the proceedings before the Regional Court. It determined the amount of just satisfaction “on an equitable basis” and made a reference to Article 41 of the Convention. 30.  On 30 June 2005, in response to the applicant’s inquiry, the Ministry of Justice affirmed that the average length of labour disputes which had been resolved in the previous year was 17 ½ months. 31.  In September 2005 the applicant lodged two actions against R. with the Trnava District Court to require the defendant to assign him work under his employment contract and to pay him wages for the period subsequent to the period covered by the judgment of 28 May 2004. These actions were later transmitted to the Galanta District Court which was competent to entertain them. The actions are still pending before that court. 32.  In December 2005 the applicant filed a personal bankruptcy petition with the Nové Zámky District Court. The petition was then transmitted to the Nitra District Court on the ground that the latter court was competent to examine it. It is still pending before that court. The applicant is also facing the forcible sale of his house in order to meet his debts. 33.  The non-payment of the applicant’s wages was investigated in the context of his criminal complaint. This has produced no material result as it was found that R. and its representatives could not be traced. 34.  The applicant was granted premature retirement benefits. The amount of his benefits was reduced by approximately 50% on the ground that in the preceding period he had de facto received neither a salary nor compensation for loss of salary, this being a relevant criterion. 35.  As a result of the litigation the applicant has been under severe psychological stress and in 2007 suffered 2 heart attacks.