4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 14 and 18 November 2003 the applicant lodged an action for damages against the Bratislava II District Labour Office. Originally his two identical submissions were given two file numbers and were assigned to two judges. As from 16 December 2003 they were dealt with together by one judge under one file number. 6.  The Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court examined a number of procedural issues. The applicant repeatedly modified his action, requested that the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Justice join the proceedings as defendants, challenged the lack of impartiality of a judge, requested that the District Court exempt him from the obligation to pay court fees and appoint a legal-aid lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. 7.  On 6 August 2008 the applicant informed the District Court that his legal-aid lawyer had died. 8.  On 27 November 2008 the District Court dismissed a part of the applicant's claim and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the remaining part. 9.  On 7 January 2009 the mail with the above judgment sent to the applicant's lawyer was returned to the District Court. The postal delivery report indicated that the lawyer had not collected the mail. 10.  The stamp on the judgment indicates that the latter became final on 23 January 2009. 11.  Following the applicant's request, the judgment was served on him on 19 May 2009. He appealed on 1 June 2009. The proceedings are pending. 12.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length of proceedings complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, concluding that the applicant had not complained thereof to the President of the District Court. The complaint about the assignment of the applicant's case to another District Court judge in 2003 was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. 13.  On 7 February 2008 his second complaint was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been a short period of inactivity in 2004 but stated that this fact did not warrant the conclusion that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It held that the applicant's conduct had notably contributed to their duration and due to his actions the District Court had been prevented from proceeding with the case. It further rejected the complaint about the assignment of the case to another judge as being manifestly ill-founded. 14.  On 4 November 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected a third length of proceedings complaint on the ground that it concerned the matter already examined on 7 February 2008. It held that the period of several months that had elapsed was too short to examine the complaint. It also noted that that conclusion did not prevent the Constitutional Court from examining the applicant's fresh complaint in the future.