4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Žilina.
A  Action 5.  On 13 May 1996 the applicant brought a civil action in the Žilina District Court (Okresný súd). In her capacity as a self-employed entrepreneur, she submitted that she had bought a cash register from another entrepreneur, that the cash register was faulty and that, therefore, she had repudiated the contract. She sought an order for payment of 24,750 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) by way of restitution of the purchase price. 6.  On 7 June 1996, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued a payment order (platobný rozkaz) for the amount claimed. 7.  The defendant then challenged the order by way of a protest (odpor), as a result of which the order was ex lege vacated. 8.  On 23 March 1999 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report concerning the alleged defects in the cash register. On 1 March 2000 the District Court appointed a second expert since it had turned out that the first expert was not licensed to carry out the type of analysis needed. 9.  On 19 April 2000 the expert report was drawn up and the District Court then sought the parties' observations on it. 10.  In 2001 and 2002 the District Court sought further information from the parties and repeatedly requested them to make the cash register available for testing. 11.  Between 16 September 1996 and 5 March 2003 the District Court held 4 hearings. 12.  Following the last-mentioned hearing, on the same day, the action was dismissed. The District Court found it established that the cash register did not function correctly and that this was caused by the applicant connecting it to an electrical outlet different from the one specified in the operating instructions. In other words, the applicant had failed to establish that the malfunction was due to defects in the cash register. 13.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal contesting both the factual findings as well as the legal conclusions of the District Court. 14.  On 13 November 2003 the Žilina Regional Court (Krajský súd) heard the appeal following which, on the same day, it overturned the judgment of 5 March 2003. Disapproving the District Court's factual findings, the Regional Court granted the action in full. It was true that the cash register had not been connected exactly in accordance with the operating instructions. However, as concluded by the expert, the connection complied with all applicable technical norms and it was not the cause of the malfunction. The burden of proving the cause of the failure and establishing who was responsible for it rested with the defendant. The defendant had the cash register in his possession, had failed to deliver it to the court and had put up no other relevant defence to the action. Having been served on the parties, the judgment became final on 29 January 2004. 15.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). She directed the complaint against the District Court, contesting the length of the proceedings before it and claiming SKK 145,000[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 16.  On 19 February and 2 July 2003, respectively, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution. The applicant was awarded SKK 20,000[3] by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of her legal costs.
In view of the scope of the complaint, as formulated by the applicant, the period under the Constitutional Court's review was more than 6 years and 9 months. No justification for the length of this period could be found either in the nature of the case or in the applicant's procedural conduct. On the other hand, the District Court had been completely inactive for more than 2 years and 4 months between September 1996 and February 1999. The District Court's understaffing and its excessive workload could not be accepted as excuses in this respect.