4.  The applicants live in Žilina. The first applicant was born in 1939 and the second applicant was born in 1944. 5.  The first applicant participated in a tender concerning the resolution of a technical problem within a State-owned company. The tender never resulted in a contract as the company went into liquidation. 6.  On 20 November 1991 the first applicant claimed compensation (the equivalent of approximately 200 euros) from the company. He later indicated several Ministries as additional defendants. 7.  On 23 April 1992 the Ministry of Construction and Works informed the District Court in Žilina that the defendant company had ceased to exist and that it had taken over the company’s obligations. The decision concerning the transfer of liabilities of the company was later quashed. 8.  On 26 August 1992 the first applicant extended his action to comprise also the above Ministry as defendant. He later indicated three other Ministries as defendants as it was unclear which authority was liable for the original defendant’s obligations. On 8 December 1992 the first applicant requested that the District Court should issue a payment order. 9.  On 20 February 1995 the Žilina District Court decided to deal separately with the claim to the extent that it concerned three Ministries. At the applicant’s request it discontinued the proceedings in respect of the other defendants including the State-owned company which, in the meantime, had ceased to exist. 10.  On 7 April 1995 the first applicant sued also the Ministry of Economy in the context of the proceedings. In October 1995 and in January 1996 representatives of that Ministry informed the court that the Ministry of Economy lacked standing in the case. 11.  Hearings were held on 28 February 1996 and on 2 September 1996. On 18 July 1996 the applicant requested a change in the defendants. He amended his claim on 3 September 1996. 12.  On 5 February 1998 the District Court asked the first applicant to specify which authorities were defendants in the case. The applicant replied on 19 February 1998. On 18 March 1998 he submitted further information. 13.  On 31 March 1998 the District Court joined to the proceedings the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Construction and Public Works as authorities representing the defendant State. One of the Ministries appealed on 27 April 1998. On 1 April 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of two different authorities. 14.  On 28 October 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 31 March 1998. 15.  On 20 July 1999 the first applicant made a submission to the District Court. 16.  On 1 August 2000, in accordance with the instruction of the Regional Court, the District Court invited the applicant to specify which authority acted on behalf of the Slovak Republic in the proceedings and to specify the sum claimed. The first applicant replied on 10 August 2000. 17.  On 17 October 2000 the District Court asked the defendant for comments on the action. The defendant replied on 30 October 2000. Subsequently the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to obtain documents concerning the work for which the applicant claimed compensation. 18.  On 6 June 2001 the District Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim. The court found that the State-owned company which had sought the tenders had been liquidated without any successor by a final decision of 31 March 1992. 19.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant appealed. The file was transmitted to the appellate court on 11 October 2001. 20.  On 5 March 2002 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment which became final on 20 July 2002. 21.  In the meantime, on 5 April 2002, the applicant requested that the court fee should be returned to him. That submission was considered as an appeal against the decision ordering the applicant to pay the fee for the appellate proceedings. The Regional Court in Žilina rejected the appeal, on 8 July 2002, as having been filed out of time. 22.  On 28 November 2002 the applicants extended the application with reference to the facts described below. 23.  The first applicant has been involved in (i) proceedings concerning the validity of transfer of ownership which were brought on 20 January 2001 and which are pending before the Žilina District Court and (ii) proceedings concerning an estate which, at the moment when the complaint was filed, had been pending before the Žilina District Court since 1997. Following the appellate court’s decision given on 11 October 2004, the latter set of proceedings is now again pending before the Žilina District Court. 24.  Both applicants have been plaintiffs in proceedings concerning the validity of a purchase contract. The proceedings were brought on 27 January 2000 and the first instance court gave its decision on 11 November 2004. 25.  On 23 April 2001 the applicants brought proceedings concerning the right of lease. The proceedings are pending before the Žilina District Court which is to decide on the case at first instance. 26.  On 16 August 2000 the first applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings concerning his action of 1991. On 16 November 2000 the Constitutional Court rejected the petition on the ground that the first applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings as required by the Constitutional Court Act. 27.  As they considered the length of the various sets of proceedings mentioned in point B. above to be excessive, the first applicant or the second applicant sought redress before the Constitutional Court by complaints lodged in June 2002. The applicants were invited to lodge their submissions in accordance with the statutory requirements and, in particular, to appoint a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings as required by the Constitutional Court Act. The applicants replied that the above requirement was discriminatory and contrary to the Constitution. 28.  By three decisions delivered on 20 August 2002 and by another two decisions delivered on 23 October 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ complaints as falling short of the procedural requirements. The decisions stated, inter alia, that the applicants had not appointed a lawyer to represent them before the Constitutional Court.