4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 1 and 11 August 2003 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant's objections to a notification of enforcement and its costs. The decisions were served on the applicant on 13 September 2003. 6.  On 10 January 2000 enforcement proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Bratislava IV District Court. 7.  On three occasions the District Court submitted prematurely the case file to the Bratislava Regional Court. On 30 May 2003 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judge for bias. 8.  On 10 December 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings and the decision was confirmed by the Regional Court on 24 September 2004. 9.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the above proceedings before the Bratislava IV District Court. On 28 April 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted his length of proceedings complaint in respect of proceedings 15 E 22/00 and rejected the remainder as having been lodged outside the statutory two‑month time-limit. 10.  On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava IV District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. The Constitutional Court further concluded that the finding of a violation represented in itself sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case. It reasoned its decision not to award any just satisfaction with reference to the position of the applicant in the enforcement proceedings, the applicant being the party liable. It further noted that it had been the applicant's conduct that had given rise to enforcement of the decision in issue. It further reasoned that, if the applicant had complied with the enforcement decision, the enforcement proceedings would never have had to be brought.