4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant being a shareholder of a limited liability company sought determination of his right to consult the company’s accounting documents before the Bratislava Regional Court. 6.  On 5 November 2002 the Regional Court granted the action in that it ordered the defendant to afford the applicant the opportunity to consult the company’s documents for the years 2000 and 2001. 7.  On 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court, on the defendant’s appeal, dismissed the judgment concerning the applicant’s claim to consult the company’s documents for 2001. It further quashed the remaining part of the judgment and returned the case to the Regional Court for a new determination. The applicant appealed on points of law. 8.  On 27 April 2006 a cassation chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law. 9.  On 7 November 2008 the Regional Court by a decision of a chamber in a changed composition stayed the proceedings pending the outcome ofa different set of proceedings related to the applicant’s expulsion from the company. The applicant appealed against the decision. 10.  On 28 April 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 11.  On 30 June 2009 the applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the proceedings before both the Regional Court and the Supreme Court concerning his action. It further alleged that the proceedings leading to the Regional Court’s decision to stay them had been unfair and that he had been deprived of his right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law. Finally, he complained of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. 12.  On 10 September 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The Constitutional Court, examining separately the length of proceedings before the Regional Court and the Supreme Court, held that the Regional Court’s inactivity following its decision to stay the proceedings could not be considered as unjustified delays. As to the period before the decision to stay of the proceeding, it did not find any indication of a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As far as the proceedings before the Supreme Court were concerned, the Constitutional Court observed that at the time of lodging of the constitutional complaint the proceedings had been stayed by the final decision and their duration was in any event less than six months. It therefore rejected the complaint of the length of the proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded. It also rejected the remaining complaints on the same ground. 13.  On 20 April 2011 the Regional Court issued a judgment in the other set of proceedings which became final on 16 December 2011. 14.  On 4 April 2012 the Regional Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings on the appeal on points of law concerning the above judgment of 16 December 2011. 15.  The applicant appealed against the decision. The proceedings are pending.