4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa. 5.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Bratislava IV District Court against the Slovak Television (a State-owned public television network). He mainly claimed compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the defendant company in breach of the applicant’s intellectual property rights. The claim was based on a contract concluded between the parties, under which the applicant had been obliged to create documentaries and several short films. 6.  The applicant’s requests for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees were repeatedly examined by the District, Regional and Supreme Courts. Finally, in 2004 the applicant was exempted from the obligation to pay 50 % of the court fees. 7.  On 26 January 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not paid the fees. The applicant appealed. 8.  On 31 August 2005 the above decision was quashed by the Bratislava Regional Court and the case was remitted to the District Court. It was established that the District Court had not correctly calculated the amount of the fees. 9.  On 19 October 2005 the District Court judge asked the applicant to pay the court fees. The applicant was also notified that his failure to pay the fees would lead to the discontinuation of the proceedings. 10.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal which was directed against “any future decision to discontinue the proceedings for a failure to pay the court fees”. 11.  As the applicant had not paid the fees, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 29 November 2005. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 December 2005. It became final on 26 December 2005. 12.  On 10 August 2006 the applicant learned that his appeal of 16 November 2005 had been archived by the District Court and had not been transferred to the court of appeal. 13.  On 1 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s costs. Despite the applicant’s request, it did not order the District Court to proceed without further delay. 14.  On 8 September 2006 the applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention and complained that the District Court had refused to deal with his appeal of 16 November 2005. On 4 October 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It noted that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal could be filed within fifteen days counted from the date when a decision had been served on the party to the proceedings. The law clearly set the beginning and the end of the time-limit. Although the applicant could have foreseen the consequences of his failure to pay the fees, there was no possibility, envisaged by the law, to appeal against a decision which had not yet been adopted. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2006.