4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  In 1993 the applicant’s husband died in a road traffic accident caused by a person who was in 1995 convicted of an offence of bodily harm. 6.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava V District Court. She claimed compensation for her maintenance from the person responsible for the accident. 7.  On 3 December 2001 an insurance company informed the District Court that it wished to join the proceedings as a third party. 8.  On 9 December 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment in which it partially granted the applicant’s claim. 9.  The applicant and the insurance company appealed. 10.  On 24 February 2005 the case file was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals. 11.  On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court held a hearing. 12.  On 29 September 2005 it granted the applicant’s appeal and rejected the appeal of the insurance company. 13.  On 24 November 2005 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for the service of its judgment. 14.  On 30 December 2005 the insurance company appealed on points of law. 15.  On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance company and its costs of the proceedings and remitted the case to the Regional Court for a new determination. 16.  On 18 April 2007 the Regional Court received the case file and on 25 April 2007 it scheduled a hearing for 31 January 2008. 17.  Subsequently the Regional Court had requested in vain competent authorities to establish the defendant’s whereabouts. 18.  In February 2008 the defendant’s legal representative informed the Regional Court that he had no knowledge of the defendant’s place of residence. 19.  On 9 May 2008 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 30 April 2009 and on 24 April 2009 appointed a guardian to represent the defendant in the proceedings. 20.  On 24 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance company and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses. 21.  On 9 November 2009 the Regional Court sent the case file to the District Court to serve the judgment on the parties. The judgment became final on 25 November 2009. 22.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. 23.  In its finding of 29 October 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case and to compensate for the costs of the applicant’s representation in the constitutional proceedings. It decided not to grant any just satisfaction to the applicant on account that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings. 24.  In 2009 the applicant repeatedly turned to the Constitutional Court claiming that the proceedings in issue pending before the Regional Court were delayed. 25.  On 28 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and on 20 January 2010 decided that the applicant’s right had not been violated. Referring to the applicant’s complaint directed exclusively against the Regional Court, the Constitutional Court examined only the period after the case file had been transmitted to the Regional Court for the decision on the appeals lodged by the parties. It found that the case had not been complex and the applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the duration of the proceedings. It further held despite the period when the Regional Court had scheduled a hearing in April 2007 for 31 January 2008, the conduct of the Regional Court could not be considered as resulting in unjustified delays. 26.  On 17 May 2005 the Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated (see Palgutová v. Slovakia, no. 9818/02, 17 May 2005). The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted, at that time, nine years and more than six months at two levels of jurisdiction (Palgutová, cited above, § 46). It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained and EUR 500 for costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court.