4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Fintice. 5.  On 29 December 1994 the applicant lodged an action with the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) seeking an order for payment of outstanding wages. 6.  On 28 February 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) to a hearing without unjustified delay in the proceedings. 7.  On 27 May 2003 the Court came to a similar conclusion in a judgment, in which it found a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Piskura v. Slovakia, no. 65567/01, 27 May 2003). 8.  Meanwhile, the action had been allowed by the District Court. Following the defendant’s appeal, it was also allowed by the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd), on 21 June 2005. 9.  The judgment became final and binding on 2 August 2005 and enforceable on 18 August 2005. It contained an order that the defendant pay the applicant the equivalent of some 35,500 euros (EUR). 10.  In the course of the proceedings described above, on 16 December 2003, the Košice Regional Court declared the defendant insolvent. 11.  On 27 January 2003 the applicant registered in the insolvency proceedings a claim, which appears to be identical to the claim asserted by way of his action of 29 December 1994 (see paragraph 5 above). 12.  At a hearing held on 21 May 2003 the insolvency receiver contested the applicant’s claim, in response to which he lodged a new action with a view to having the claim acknowledged by a court. 13.  On 27 September 2005, upon the applicant’s action, the Regional Court ruled that his claim in the insolvency proceedings was valid and fell to be satisfied of the proceeds of the realisation of the insolvency estate. The judgment became final and binding on 10 December 2005 and enforceable on 14 December 2005. 14.  On 28 April 2008 the applicant registered a further claim in the insolvency proceedings and the receiver acknowledged it on 3 July 2008. 15.  On 20 January 2011 the Regional Court issued a decision approving a final report by the receiver on the realisation of the estate and on his fees and expenses (konečná správa o speňažovaní majetku úpadcu a o vyúčtovaní odmeny a výdavkov správcu). Following the applicant’s appeal, on 30 March 2011 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for re examination. It found, inter alia, that the Regional Court had omitted to deal with the applicant’s objections to the report. 16.  On 17 October 2011 the Regional Court issued a fresh decision approving the report and it was upheld by the Supreme Court on 13 January 2012, following the applicant’s appeal. 17.  The insolvency proceedings are still pending in their phase aimed at distribution of the proceeds of the realisation of the estate, the applicant having thus far not recovered any part of his claim. 18.  On 19 August 2009, following the applicant’s complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court found that, in the insolvency proceedings, there had been a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay. At the same time, it ordered that the enforcement proceedings be proceeded with without unjustified delay and awarded the applicant EUR 1,600 by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 19.  As to the just satisfaction award, the Constitutional Court also ruled that it was payable within two months of the day on which the constitutional judgment (nález) became final and binding. It became final and binding on 24 September 2009 and enforceable the following day. The award was actually paid on 3 September 2010. 20.  The applicant’s previous constitutional complaint of alleged delays and subsequent five constitutional complaints of alleged continuing delays in the insolvency proceedings were unsuccessful. 21.  On 28 November 2005 the applicant lodged a claim under the State Liability Act (Law no. 514/2003 Coll.) with the Ministry of Justice, arguing that there had been “wrongful official conduct” consisting of unjustified delays in the insolvency proceedings and seeking damages. 22.  Not having received any compensation from the Ministry voluntarily, presumably on 29 November 2006, the applicant lodged his claim with the Bratislava I District Court. After the question of the court fees was dealt with at three levels of jurisdiction and the question of legal aid at two, the action has been pending at first instance. 23.  Meanwhile, the applicant had three times unsuccessfully contested before the Constitutional Court alleged unjustified delays in the proceedings in his action. His latest complaint was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on 4 May 2011. 24.  On 24 October 2003 the applicant filed a criminal complaint accusing one or more persons unknown of having unlawfully failed to pay him wages. However, this has not resulted in the opening of any criminal proceedings in the matter.
The applicant also unsuccessfully sought enforcement of the judgment concerning his wages and made a number of various other submissions including complaints against various persons involved in his case and a motion to the Public Prosecution Service seeking, inter alia, a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency and Restructuring Code (Law no. 8/2005 Coll., as amended).