4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava. 5.  On 24 October 2000 the applicant filed an action with the Trenčín District Court. He claimed compensation for damage from an insurance company. 6.  On 30 November 2001 the Trenčín District Court dismissed the action. On 22 March 2002, upon an appeal by the applicant, the case file was transferred to the Trenčín Regional Court. On 24 October 2002 the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the decision. It remitted the case to the District Court on 15 November 2002. 7.  On 14 January 2004 the District Court judge fixed the next hearing for February 2004. On 4 February 2004 the applicant requested additional evidence to be taken and five witnesses to be heard. 8.  In April 2004 and February and March 2005 the District Court held three hearings and ordered an expert opinion. 9.  On 10 May 2005 the appointed expert asked the District Court for additional documents which he considered necessary for the elaboration of an expert opinion. On 15 November 2005 the District Court informed him that it did not have the requested documents. 10.  In June 2006 the District Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment on 4 July 2006. 11.  On 9 November 2006 the Trenčín Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, partly upheld and partly quashed the first-instance judgment. 12.  In March 2007 the District Court held a hearing. It dismissed the applicant’s claim at a hearing held on 3 April 2007. 13.  On 9 August 2007 the Trenčín Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, upheld the first-instance judgment (the Regional Court’s judgment became final on 15 August 2007). 14.  On 27 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Trenčín District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. 15.  The applicant had complained exclusively about the proceedings before the Trenčín District Court. The Constitutional Court had regard to the fact that the time taken by the Regional Court to decide the appeal (8 months) had prolonged the proceedings. 16.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was to some extent complex from the factual but not the legal point of view. However, the factual complexity of the case could not justify the length of the proceedings. The applicant’s conduct had not contributed to their length. Delays imputable to the Trenčín District Court had exceeded 13 months. 17.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) – the equivalent of 259 euros at that time – as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Trenčín District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs (176 euros).