4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Bratislava. 5.  The applicants' parents are divorced. Their father had been ordered by the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) to contribute to their maintenance. 6.  The father's obligation to contribute to the first applicant's maintenance ended when the first applicant finished his secondary studies and commenced his military service. 7.  After his military service, the first applicant commenced his university studies and applied for a fresh maintenance order against his father. Jointly with the first applicant, the second applicant applied for an increase of her maintenance. 8.  The applicants' father then filed a separate action to have his maintenance obligation terminated. 9.  These two actions were determined in two separate sets of proceedings which are described below, the applicants' action being the main subject matter of the present application. 10.  As a consequence of the ongoing and still unresolved maintenance dispute the applicants found it difficult to provide for themselves during their studies. The second applicant finally had to abandon her post-secondary education in order to allow the first applicant to finish his studies.
The second applicant later became a mother and was no longer completely free in her choice of school since she had to combine her studies with her family situation and commitments. Since a public sector college was not an option given her situation, she is currently studying at a private college where she has to pay an annual tuition fee of 45,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK). 11.  On 30 September 1994 the applicants' mother filed a motion against their father for a fresh maintenance order in respect of the first applicant and for an increase of the payments towards the maintenance of the second applicant. 12.  On 30 November 1994 the applicants submitted powers of attorney in favour of their mother and provided further and better particulars specifying, inter alia, that the claim was in their own name but that they were acting through the intermediary of their mother. 13.  On 4 July 1996 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicants to continue the action directly in their own names. Further hearings were scheduled for 13 March and 3 April 1997. The former had to be adjourned due to the absence of the parties. The latter was adjourned to enable the applicants to amend their statement of claim, which they did on the same day. 14.  On 29 December 1998 the applicants requested that the proceedings be dealt with. On 20 May 1999 the District Court requested them to submit information concerning their school attendance and their mother's income. 15.  On 19 February 2001 the District Court requested information from the employers of the applicants' mother and father concerning their respective incomes. 16.  On 20 March 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the parties requested a three-week adjournment in order to explore the possibility of settling the case. The hearing was adjourned sine die. 17.  On 9 April 2001 the applicants' lawyer informed the District Court that the attempts to settle the case had failed and requested that the proceedings be resumed and a hearing fixed promptly. She reiterated the request on 10 September 2001. 18.  Another hearing was held on 9 October 2001 and was adjourned sine die, the defendant being ordered to produce evidence. The order was reiterated on 8 November 2001. 19.  A hearing was fixed for 28 March 2002 and adjourned to 23 April 2002 and then again to 23 May 2002. 20.  On 23 May 2002 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it issued a maintenance order in favour of the first applicant and increased the maintenance to be paid to the second applicant. At the same time it determined the period for which the maintenance should be paid and allowed the father to pay the arrears in instalments. 21.  At the request of the District Court judge dealing with the case, the President of the District Court authorised an extension of the period for finalising the written version of the judgment until 30 July 2002. It was finally served on the parties in August 2002 and the defendant appealed. 22.  The District Court obtained the applicants' observations in reply and the court fee from the defendant and, on 22 October 2002, submitted the case file to the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) for a decision on the appeal. 23.  On 24 February 2003 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court without a decision on the ground that the latter had failed to deliver formally the decision of 4 July 1996 concerning the applicants' standing in the proceedings. 24.  The District Court delivered and secured service on the parties of the decision in question. It became final on 16 July 2003. The case file was re‑submitted to the Regional Court on 9 September 2003. 25.  On 23 March 2004 the Regional Court heard the appeal. The hearing was adjourned with a view to obtaining the case file concerning the father's claim for cancellation of his maintenance obligation. 26.  On 15 June 2004 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the matter to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re-examination. 27.  In December 2005 the District Court requested the applicants to inform the court whether they were still full-time students or engaged in training for a future career. 28.  The District Court held hearings on 20 and 24 April 2007. At the latter hearing it pronounced a judgment ordering the defendant to pay maintenance in favour of the first applicant, determining the period for which the maintenance should be paid, allowing the defendant to pay the arrears in instalments and dismissing the remainder of the action. The second applicant appealed and the proceedings concerning her are still pending. 29.  On 13 July 2004 the applicants, who were represented by a lawyer, lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) in respect of the length of the proceedings in their action. They directed the complaint against both the District Court and the Regional Court and claimed SKK 500,000[2] each in damages. 30.  On 8 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible in so far as it was directed against the Regional Court and inadmissible in so far as it was directed against the District Court. In accordance with its established practice, the Constitutional Court found that the complaint in respect of the District Court was belated because the proceedings before that court had ended with its judgment of 23 May 2002. Since the proceedings had no longer been pending at the time when the constitutional complaint had been lodged, their examination could no longer serve to expedite them. 31.  On 2 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that there was no violation of the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution). In line with its admissibility decision, the Constitutional Court examined exclusively the part of the proceedings before the Regional Court. It found no particular factual or legal complexity in the case and no delays attributable to the applicants. It further found that the Regional Court could not bear any responsibility for the proceedings in the period between 24 February and 9 September 2003 when the case file was with the District Court for the correction of procedural errors in connection with the decision of 4 July 1996. The Constitutional Court thus confined itself to the period after 9 September 2003 and found no significant delays on the part of the Regional Court. 32.  On 14 October 2004 the applicants lodged a fresh constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings in their action before the District Court. They submitted that on 4 October 2004, that is to say after the above partial inadmissibility decision of 8 September 2004, they had been served with the Regional Court's decision of 15 June 2004 by which the first‑instance judgment had been quashed and the matter remitted to the District Court. Thus, neither they nor the Constitutional Court had been aware of the fact that, at the time of the Constitutional Court's partial inadmissibility decision, their action had in fact been again before the District Court. Therefore, the complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court had not been belated. 33.  On 27 October 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible under sections 24 (a) and 25 § 2 of the Constitutional Court Act on the ground that it concerned a matter that was considered res iudicata. 34.  On 5 June 1995 the applicants' father lodged a separate motion for the cancellation of his maintenance obligation in respect of the second applicant. 35.  On 29 April 1996 the District Court allowed the motion. The second applicant appealed. 36.  On 21 February 1997 the Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible as being belated. The second applicant appealed on points of law (dovolanie) arguing that there had been a miscalculation of the period for filing the appeal. 37.  The case file subsequently had to be re-assembled after having been misplaced. 38.  On 26 August 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 21 February 1997 and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for a new determination of the second applicant's appeal against the judgment of 29 April 1996.
The Supreme Court found that the Regional Court had erred in the calculation of the period for appealing and that the appeal had been lodged in due time. 39.  On 26 February 2004 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings following the father's withdrawal of the action.