4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Fintice. 5.  On 29 December 1994 the applicant filed an action for outstanding salary to the Prešov District Court. 6.  The District Court heard the parties on 22 March 1995. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of two defendants. 7.  On 10 May 1995 the District Court delivered an interim judgment to the effect that the defendant owed salary to the applicant. 8.  On 19 June 1995 the defendant appealed. The case file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 22 August 1995. On 29 March 1996 the latter quashed the judgment of 10 May 1995. 9.  In October 1996 the above District Court’s decision of 22 March 1995 was served on the parties. On 14 October 1996 one of the defendants appealed and challenged the District Court’s decision on costs of the proceedings. 10.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 13 November 1996, 18 December 1996 and on 23 April 1997. On 9 January 1997 the case was taken over by another judge. 11.  On 9 June 1997 the case file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court for a decision on the defendant’s appeal of 14 October 1996. The Regional Court decided on the appeal on 27 June 1997 and the case file was returned to the District Court on 7 October 1997. 12.  Another hearing before the District Court was held on 25 May 1998. The parties failed to appear before the court on 3 June 1998. On 30 September 1998 the District Court heard the applicant. 13.  On 12 October 1998 the defendant requested the District Court to take further evidence. The District Court heard witnesses on 26 October 1998 and in the course of November 1998 it obtained further documentary evidence. On 3 December 1998 the applicant specified his claim. 14.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 27 January 1999 and on 1 February 1999. On 3 February 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 15.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant appealed. The case file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court on 27 April 1999. On 20 December 1999 the appellate court quashed the first instance judgment. The case file was returned to the District Court on 10 January 2000. 16.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 20 March 2000 and on 10 May 2000. On 1 June 2000 the District Court ordered that an expert opinion be submitted within fifty days. On 16 September 2000 the expert requested the District Court to specify her task. The District Court replied to the expert on 25 September 2000. On 2 January 2001, 5 April 2001 and on 11 May 2001 the District Court urged the expert to submit the opinion. 17.  On 11 March 2001 the expert requested the defendant to submit further information to her. The defendant complied with the request on 26 June 2001. The expert opinion was submitted to the District Court on 12 July 2001. On 27 August 2001 the District Court asked for the parties’ comments on the opinion. The parties replied in September 2001. 18.  A hearing before the District Court was held on 24 October 2001. The applicant requested that a second expert opinion be ordered. On 2 November 2001 the applicant specified the issues to be addressed by the second expert. 19.  On 31 July 2001 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. On 1 February 2002 he supplemented his submissions in that, inter alia, he claimed compensation pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force from 1 January 2002. 20.  On 28 February 2002 the Constitutional Court found that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have the case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court admitted, on the one hand, that the factual background of the case was complex. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court found that what was at stake for the applicant called for particular diligence and that no particular delays in the proceedings were imputable to the applicant. The decision stated that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case effectively in that, in particular, it had failed to ensure that the expert opinion was submitted in time. In the decision the Constitutional Court did not address the applicant’s claim for damages under Article 127 of the Constitution. 21.  In a judgment delivered on 18 September 2002 the Prešov District Court ordered the defendant to pay salary to the applicant for the period from 14 November 1992 to 30 September 2002. Subsequently the District Court delivered a decision rectifying clerical errors in the judgment. On 27 November 2002 the defendant appealed. The proceedings are pending.