6.  The applicants are husband and wife. Mr D. Ďurďovič was born in 1942 and lives in Hodonín, the Czech Republic. Ms M. Trančíková was born 1939 and lives in Bratislava. 7.  On 2 October 1997 the applicants brought a claim in the Stará Ľubovňa District Court, alleging that they were the owners of real property which had been included in the assets of an insolvent company. 8.  On 16 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the claim. With reference to the documents before it and judicial decisions delivered earlier the court established that the property in question had been transferred to the company which had later become insolvent. 9.  In an appeal the applicants argued, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to take evidence, as suggested by them, with a view to establishing that the property had not actually been transferred to the company. They also maintained that the case should have been assigned to a judge dealing with civil cases instead of a judge deciding commercial disputes. 10.  On 24 April 2008 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment. It found that the applicants had failed to show that the property had been erroneously included in the assets of the insolvent company in the context of the insolvency proceedings. 11.  On 9 July 2008 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They argued that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings before the appellate court which rendered the appeal on points of law admissible pursuant to Article 237 (a), (d) and (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12.  In particular, they alleged that the appellate court had determined the case without hearing the parties and establishing the relevant facts. Earlier consent they had given for the appellate court to proceed with the case in their absence at the hearing of 24 April 2008 did not mean that they accepted the determination of the merits without the parties having been heard. The applicants further argued that the case had been dealt with as a commercial dispute, whereas it should have been determined by judges dealing with civil cases. 13.  On 30 November 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. It held that the reasons for its admissibility as invoked by the applicants could not be accepted. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the applicants had notified the Regional Court that they would not be appearing on 24 April 2008, and that they had agreed with the case proceeding in their absence. The fact that the appellate court had not quashed the first-instance court’s judgment as requested by them could not affect the position. 14.  The Supreme Court further held that in the proceedings complained of, the situation described in Article 237 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exist, and that the applicants had not shown that a final decision on the matter had been given earlier for the purposes of Article 237 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15.  On 8 March 2010 the applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to the District Court’s judgment of 16 August 2006, the Regional Court’s judgment of 24 April 2008 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 November 2009. 16.  For reasons invoked in their appeal and appeal on points of law, they complained that their right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law had been breached. They also complained that the Supreme Court had not allowed them to respond to the defendants’ comments on their appeal on points of law. 17.  The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on 23 September 2010. As the District Court’s judgment had been reviewed by the Regional Court upon appeal, the Constitutional Court held that it did not have the power to examine the alleged shortcomings in the first-instance proceedings. 18.  As to the Regional Court’s judgment, the applicants had failed to submit their complaint within the statutory time-limit of two months. The fact that they had sought redress by means of an appeal on points of law could not affect the position, as the Supreme Court had rejected that remedy as inadmissible. 19.  Finally, as to the cassation proceedings, the Constitutional Court found no evidence of unfairness in the way the Supreme Court had dealt with and decided on the applicants’ appeal on points of law. Its failure to let the applicants comment on the other party’s observations on it had not rendered the proceedings unfair in the circumstances.