4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Trnava. 5.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Western Slovakia Electricity Company in the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd). He submitted that he had sustained damage as a result of a fire caused by the meters for measuring electricity consumption which belonged to the defendant. The applicant claimed that the defendant was responsible for this damage and sought compensation. 6.  On 18 June 2001 the District Court requested that the applicant provide further and better particulars, especially a specification of the amount of damages claimed. The applicant responded on 9 July 2001. 7.  On 10 July 2001 the District Court asked the applicant to pay court fees. The applicant responded by demanding an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees on account of his financial situation. 8.  On 31 January 2002 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees. 9.  On 26 March 2002 the District Court requested the defendant's observations in reply. 10.  The District Court listed hearings for 3 March and 28 April 2004. The former was cancelled on request of the defendant who was unable to appear and the second was adjourned until 16 June 2004 in order to enable the applicant to identify the defendant in accordance with the applicable formal requirements. The hearing of 16 June 2004 was adjourned with a view to obtaining expert evidence. 11.  In the meantime, on 14 May 2004, the District Court authorised a change in defendants. 12.  On 11 February 2005 the District Court appointed an energy expert to draw up a report on the case. On 29 March 2005 the expert informed the court that he was not licensed to provide an opinion on the matter. The District Court requested clarification of this from the Ministry of Justice which maintains the register of sworn translators and experts. 13.  In a letter of 25 March 2005 the Ministry informed the District Court that the expert had a valid licence. The District Court subsequently requested the expert to produce the report and warned that he could be sanctioned if he failed to do so. On 7 July 2005 the expert submitted a decree of 9 May 2002 showing that his licence had been withdrawn. 14.  On 20 July 2005 the District Court appointed a new expert who filed a report on 5 October 2005. 15.  On 20 December 2005 and 19 January 2006, respectively, the District Court ordered the defendant to pay an advance on the expert's fees and requested the parties' observations on his report. The parties submitted the observations in February 2006. 16.  On 17 March and 20 June 2006, respectively, the District Court ruled on the expert's fees and requested the parties to state whether they wished to call the expert as witness. They replied on 21 July 2006. 17.  On 24 June 2006 the applicant requested leave to extend the scope of the action. The District Court dismissed the request on 3 August 2006. 18.  On 13 December 2006 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant submitted that he wished to modify his statement of claim and that he would do so in writing within 10 days. The defendant requested that the court demand a report from the manufacturer of the metering installations in question. The hearing was adjourned until 21 February 2007. 19.  On 15 and 27 December 2006, respectively, the applicant submitted his modified statement of claim and the defendant put forward the questions to be put to the manufacturer. The District Court subsequently sought further and better particulars of the applicant's modified statement of claim and requested the manufacturer to answer the questions asked. 20.  On 21 February 2007 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it discontinued the proceedings in respect of a part of the claim and dismissed its remainder. The applicant appealed. 21.  On 23 August 2007 the Trenčín Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the judgment of 21 February 2007. 22.  On 1 April 2004 the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings under Article 127 of the Constitution and claimed 300,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK) in damages and reimbursement of his legal costs. 23.  On 3 June 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible. 24.  On 28 June 2004 the President of the District Court filed observations in reply to the complaint. She submitted, inter alia, that there was an objective reason why it had been impossible to proceed with the applicant's action in the period between 26 March and 4 October 2002. The initial four-year mandate of the District Court judge in charge of the case had expired. Under newly adopted legislation the validation of judges' mandates for life had been entrusted to the Judicial Council (Súdna rada). This was a professional body of the judiciary, the creation of which had been envisaged under the said legislation. However, in the specified period this body had not yet been created. It had not been practical to reassign the case to another judge because 6 out of 8 civil judges of the District Court had been in the same situation. The President further submitted that since the reorganisation of the judiciary in 1996 her court had been chronically understaffed and overburdened to such an extent that it had been impossible to take any measures to prevent delays. 25.  On 21 July 2004 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Convention) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case expeditiously. At the same time the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's claim for damages and reimbursement of his legal costs.
The Constitutional Court discerned no complexity in the subject-matter of the proceedings. As for the conduct of the applicant, it was noted that his initial submissions had been unclear and that following their clarification the applicant's contribution to the proceedings had been active. The Constitutional Court further held that “it [was] not possible to accept completely the assertion of the President of the District Court that the applicant's conduct [had] constituted a substantial obstacle for the District Court to deal with the case in a systematic and efficient fashion”. Another part of the Constitutional Court's reasoning however contains a conclusion that “it [was] obvious that the applicant [had] had a substantial share in the length of the proceedings thus far”.
As for the conduct of the proceedings by the District Court, the Constitutional Court found periods of unjustified inactivity between 27 March 2000 and 18 June 2001 and between 4 October 2002 and 7 April 2003. The Constitutional Court considered that the finding of a violation of the applicant's rights was sufficient just satisfaction for him and that an award in respect of damages and costs and expects was not appropriate “in view of the specific circumstances and nature of the matter”. It offered no further reasons. 26.  On 30 August 2005 the applicant lodged a fresh constitutional complaint arguing that there were recurring delays in the proceedings and claiming SKK 300,000 by way of compensation for his non-pecuniary damage. 27.  On 7 November 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the period prior to its judgment (nález) of 21 July 2004 was res iudicata and examined only the period subsequent to that judgment. Although in that period there had been delays in connection with the confusion regarding the status of the energy expert, these were of an objective character and could not be imputed to the District Court. No unjustified delays had been established.