4.  The applicant company was established in 1998 and has its seat in Michalovce. 5.  On 14 August 2001 the Malacky Police Office of the Regional Transport Inspectorate instituted criminal proceedings following an accident involving a lorry belonging to the applicant company. The applicant company joined a claim for compensation in respect of damage caused by the accident. 6.  On 5 September 2001 a prosecutor of the Bratislava IV District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 14 August 2001. The prosecutor ordered to proceed and establish the damage to the lorry and the goods transported. 7.  By a decision of 17 October 2002 the Bratislava Regional Directorate of the Police charged the lorry driver with the offence of endangering others under the influence of alcohol. 8.  On 6 December 2002 the applicant company complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office about delays in the criminal proceedings. 9.  On 3 January 2003 the prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant company of the course of the proceedings. 10.  In August 2004 and May and June 2008 the applicant company complained to the Minister of the Interior and the Police General Directorate that the criminal proceedings had been delayed. The Police General Directorate acknowledged by two letters of July 2008 that the delays in the criminal investigation had been partly attributable to the police. 11.  Between October 2002 and January 2006 the police investigator, according to the prosecutor’s instruction, gathered evidence necessary to establish damage and to identify the aggrieved party. 12.  On 13 January 2006 the applicant company complained to the Office of the Prosecutor General that the investigation had been delayed and the District Prosecutor’s Office, who was in charge of supervising the investigator, had been inactive. 13.  On 26 January 2006 a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General informed the applicant company that the complaint would be dealt with by the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office. 14.  By a letter of 10 February 2006 a prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant company of the course of the investigation and confirmed that the proceedings had been delayed. He stated that the delays had been caused mainly by the police conducting investigation and that the prosecutor supervising the investigation had used all means possible to eliminate shortcomings in the proceedings. 15.  On 20 February 2006 the applicant company complained to the Office of the Prosecutor General about the reaction of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office to its complaint. 16.  On 24 April 2006 the Office of the Prosecutor General advised the applicant company that both subordinate levels of the Public Prosecution Service had acted lawfully and no reasons for taking measures against their conduct had been found. It accordingly set the complaint aside and informed the applicant company that the course of the proceedings would be monitored by the Office of the Prosecutor General in order to complete the investigation in due time. 17.  According to the summary of the course of the proceedings by the Police General Directorate of July 2008, between 4 December 2007 and 16 May 2008 the investigator repeatedly summoned the representative of the applicant company to hear him. The summons could not be served since he had not collected them or he had not appeared before the investigator despite having been informed of them during telephone conversations. 18.  On 4 June 2008 the representative of the applicant company was heard by the Judicial and Criminal Police in Michalovce. 19.  In August 2008 the applicant company complained to the Constitutional Court that its rights to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated by the conduct of the Office of the Prosecutor General. 20.  On 15 October 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company’s constitutional complaint on the ground that the criminal proceedings in issue did not concern the applicant company and therefore there was no casual link between the violation alleged and the conduct of a State body in the criminal proceedings. As to the requirement of exhaustion of effective remedies it held that, before turning to the Constitutional Court, the applicant company had not requested the Public Prosecution Service to take appropriate measures to rectify shortcomings in the proceedings complained of. It referred to section 34 (1 and 2) of the Public Prosecution Service Act according to which a petitioner may demand a review of the lawfulness of how the petition has been resolved by means of a repeated petition, which shall be dealt with by a prosecutor at a higher level. A further repeated petition shall be dealt with by a prosecutor at a higher level only if it contains new information. Finally the Constitutional Court stated that neither the Constitution nor the Convention guarantee the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in a matter of a criminal complaint. 21.  On 30 January 2009 the lorry driver was accused before the Bratislava IV District Court. 22.  On 2 February 2009 the District Court found the lorry driver guilty of having committed the crime of endangering others under the influence of alcohol. It referred the applicant company with its claim to a civil court. The decision became final on 11 March 2009.