4.  The applicants are spouses. The first applicant was born in 1930 and the second applicant was born in 1940. They live in Detva. 5.  On 8 January 1997 the applicants claimed that the joint ownership of a real property should be dissolved and that the property in issue should be distributed between them and a third co-owner. 6.  On 24 February 1997 the Zvolen District Court delivered a judgment against which the defendant appealed. 7.  The judgment was quashed by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 12 June 1997. 8.  On 28 August 2002 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision of 19 July 2002 ordering each of the applicants to pay an advance on expert's fees. The second applicant unsuccessfully complained that she was not obliged to pay that sum (the equivalent of 92 euros (EUR) at that time). Subsequently, enforcement of the above decision was ordered. The second applicant submits that she was thereby put in a difficult situation as her only income was an invalidity pension. 9.  On 22 April 2002 the first applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about excessive delays in the Zvolen District Court's proceedings. The Constitutional Court asked him to rectify shortcomings in his submission. On 23 May 2002 the first applicant appointed a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings. On 30 May 2002 the lawyer, on behalf of the first applicant, complied with the Constitutional Court's request. 10.  On 8 January 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the first applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that it had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. It awarded the first applicant 25,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of EUR 607 at that time), ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the first applicant's costs. 11.  On 24 June 2003 the Zvolen District Court decided to transfer the case to the Lučenec District Court. 12.  The file was transferred to the Lučenec District Court on 7 August 2003. The latter delivered a judgment on the merits on 3 October 2005. The applicants appealed and filed additional claims for compensation. 13.  The file was transferred to the court of appeal on 18 November 2005. On 15 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, noting that it could not examine any additional claims which the plaintiffs had not submitted to the first-instance court. The decision was served on the applicants on 27 March 2006.