4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Košice. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 16 July 1985 the applicant lodged an action with the Vranov nad Topľou District Court seeking division of matrimonial property. 7.  In the subsequent period two first-instance judgments of 30 June 1987 and 31 October 1989 were quashed by decisions of the Košice Regional Court of 30 December 1987 and 21 May 1990 an the case was remitted to the District Court. 8.  On 20 November 1990 the Košice Regional Court decided that the first-instance judge was biased and on 17 December 1992 it transferred the case to the Prešov District Court for a decision. 9.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant challenged the judges of the Prešov District Court. 10.  On 5 November 1998 the Regional Court decided that, except for one judge, the judges of the Prešov District Court were not biased. 11.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant challenged another       first-instance judge. By a decision of the Regional Court of 6 October 1999 the judge was excluded from the case. 12.  On 31 August 2001 the Prešov District Court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of a real estate. 13.  On 17 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court, following the defendant's and the applicant's appeal, upheld the above decision. 14.  On 3 September 2003 the Prešov District Court delivered          a judgment. 15.  On 21 October 2003 the applicant appealed and challenged another   first-instance judge. 16.  On 9 February 2005 the Prešov Regional Court decided that the judge was not biased and overturned the first-instance judgment. The decision became final on 11 March 2005. 17.  On 7 April 2005 the applicant appealed on points of law. 18.  On 28 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 19.  The applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining that the District Court and the Regional Court had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 20.  On 1 March 2006 the Constitutional Court decided that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It also decided that the Prešov Regional Court had not violated the above right. The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's costs and expenses.