4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Smižany. 5.  Following the death of the applicant's father on 24 June 1999, inheritance proceedings were instituted in respect of his estate. The parties to the proceedings were the applicant, his brother and his mother. In the course of the proceedings only the applicant's brother was heard and, according to the applicant, his brother incorrectly declared that the deceased had not left an estate. The Nitra District Court discontinued the proceedings on 2 September 1999. 6.  The decision was served on the applicant and his brother on 7 and 8 September 1999, respectively. On 8 September 1999 the decision was served on Ms Veronika Pintérová. The applicant alleges that the decision was erroneously served on his brother's wife instead of his mother who had the same name and lived at the same address. The applicant alleges that the decision had not yet become final as the delivery slip was not signed by the addressee. He presented evidence to that effect to the Constitutional Court. 7.  The decision of 2 September 1999 to discontinue the proceedings stated that no appeal was available against it, with the exception of the costs of the proceedings. 8.  The Government stated that the decision of 2 September 1999 had become final on 23 September 1999. 9.  The applicant's mother died on 18 August 2000. 10.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant lodged a request for the above proceedings to be resumed as new assets had been found and accused the public notary, who had been appointed to deal with the case in the above proceedings, of having a conflict of interests. The applicant alleged that the public notary had erred in the above proceedings when he had stated, after having heard only his brother (and not the applicant or his mother), that no estate existed and that the proceedings had been erroneously discontinued as a result. Furthermore, the applicant objected that his mother had no knowledge of the fact that inheritance proceedings in respect of his father's estate had ended. 11.  On 13 November 2001 the district court decided not to exclude the public notary in question from dealing with or deciding on the case. 12.  On 25 August 2003 the applicant, when visiting the appointed public notary, became aware of the erroneous service on his brother's wife of the above decision of 2 September 1999. 13.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant complained of undue delays in the proceedings and requested the Nitra District Court to withdraw the appointment of the public notary. Following the public notary's request to be excluded from dealing with the case because of a conflict of interests, the district court replaced him on 27 October 2003. The newly appointed public notary proceeded with the case. 14.  At the hearing of 8 July 2004 the applicant argued that the district court's decision of 2 September 1999 in the original inheritance proceedings had not become final as it had never been served on one of the parties, namely his mother. 15.  On 20 September 2004 and 9 May 2005 hearings took place. 16.  On 6 June 2005 the district court delivered a decision which became final on 8 September 2005. 17.  On 15 October 2004 the applicant complained about the length of the above proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He requested the Constitutional Court to order the court concerned to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to pay him 80,000 Slovakian korunas (the equivalent of 2,075 euros at that time) as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. 18.  On 27 January 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. 19.  As to the first set of proceedings, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant had failed to prove erroneous service of the decision of 2 September 1999. As the decision was served on all parties to the proceedings and they had not filed an appeal, the proceedings had come to an end on 23 September 1999 and, therefore, the district court could not be liable for any further delays. 20.  As to the second set of proceedings, the Constitutional Court stated that the district court was not liable for undue delays, as following the applicant's complaint and request for replacement of the public notary and following the request of the public notary to be excluded, the district court had immediately replaced him. As the newly appointed public notary had proceeded with the case in an appropriate manner, the Constitutional Court considered the remedy used by the applicant as having been effective and did not find any appearance of any unreasonable delays.