4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 9 April 1997 the applicant sued his employer for unpaid salary before the Bratislava II District Court (file no. 10 C 90/1997). 6.  Having held two hearings in 1997, the District Court concluded that an expert opinion was necessary. 7.  On 6 August 2001 the District Court ordered an expert opinion. 8.  Following nine hearings between 2003 and 2005, the District Court adopted a judgment on 14 April 2005. 9.  The Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 11 July 2005, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. The case file was returned to the District Court on 3 April 2008. 10.  On 8 April 2010 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits. It also ruled that the costs and expenses would be decided upon once the judgment on the merits became final. The judgment on the merits became final on 28 May 2010. 11.  On 22 July 2010 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before both the Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court. 12.  On 25 August 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint (case no. III. ÚS 316/2010). The Constitutional Court examined separately the length of the proceeding on the merits and the length of the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses. It held that the proceedings on the merits had ended by a final judgment before the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint, i.e. after the state of his legal uncertainty had been eliminated. He thus failed to respect its established practice requiring the introduction of such complaints when the proceedings were pending. As to the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses, the Constitutional Court observed no delays and also pointed out that the applicant had not expressly complained of this part of the proceedings. 13.  On 23 September 2010 the District Court gave a decision on the costs and expenses which was upheld by the Regional Court on 28 June 2011. The decision of the Regional Court was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 24 August 2011.