4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Nesluša. 5.  The applicant served as a member of the Police Corps of the Slovak Republic. As he intended to engage in political life, he requested that he should be released from service in the police. In an order of 5 August 1993 the applicant’s superior acceded to the request and released the applicant with effect from 31 December 1993. 6.  On 13 August 1993 the applicant’s superior issued a new order dismissing the applicant from the police. Reference was made to a negative assessment of the applicant’s performance and behaviour. The order stated that the applicant had been found incapable of carrying out any service within the police within the meaning of section 110(1)(d) of the Police Corps Service Act 1991. The applicant and his superior subsequently agreed that the applicant would leave the police by 31 August 1993. 7.  On 30 September 1993 the President of the Police Corps dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of 13 August 1993. On 22 December 1993 the Minister of the Interior dismissed an extraordinary representation made by the applicant holding that the applicant’s service in the police had been terminated in accordance with the law in force. 8.  On 22 May 1995 the applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior before the Bratislava I District Court. He claimed that his dismissal from the police was void and that the allowance related to his departure from the police should be increased. In parallel, he claimed protection of his personal rights with reference to his dismissal and the assessment of his performance made in that context. The District Court processed the latter claim (see paragraphs 20 et seq. below). It started dealing with the claim concerning the termination of the applicant’s service and the payment of an allowance in a separate set of proceedings on 2 December 1996. 9.  On 18 April 1997 the District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction in the case. It established that the applicant sought a review of the assessment of his service in the police and of the decision on his dismissal. 10.  On 14 July 1997 the Supreme Court returned the case to the District Court as the latter had not clearly established what the applicant claimed. 11.  Subsequently the District Court requested the applicant to specify his action. The applicant replied on 5 December 1997 and 9 March 1998. The file was transmitted to the Supreme Court. 12.  On 29 September 1998 the Supreme Court returned the file to the District Court. The accompanying letter stated that the former lacked jurisdiction in the case as the applicant had not sought judicial review of the decision on his dismissal from the police. The District Court judge disagreed. On 21 December 1998 the Supreme Court decided that the action fell to be determined by the Bratislava I District Court. 13.  The District Court held the first hearing on 31 March 1999. On 10 July 2000 it discontinued the proceedings. It noted that the applicant had claimed that his service in the police had ended with his release at his own request and that the allowance to which he was entitled upon his departure from the police should be increased accordingly. The court found that the applicant’s service in the police was not governed by labour law. The relevant issues were to be determined by the Ministry of the Interior to which the District Court decided to transfer the case. 14.  On 13 September 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld that decision. The court of appeal noted that the applicant had not sought judicial review of a decision given by an administrative authority. Had he done so, the ordinary courts would have been entitled to deal with the matter under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the administrative judiciary. The decision to discontinue the proceedings became final on 21 November 2000. 15.  On 23 August 2004 the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant that the decision on his dismissal from the police had been issued in 1993. The applicant’s appeal had been dismissed by the President of the Police Corps. The Minister of the Interior had dismissed the applicant’s extraordinary remedy on 22 December 1993. The ministry’s letter stated that the decision on the applicant’s dismissal was final. No further steps could be taken in the case. 16.  In reply to further requests by the applicant the Ministry of the Interior reiterated its above position on 29 September 2004, 2 November 2004 and 10 October 2006. The ministry informed the applicant that the courts’ decision to discontinue the proceedings was of a procedural nature. It did not oblige the ministry to review the case as the law did not allow that. 17.  On 24 October 2006 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of the Interior. With reference to the District Court’s decision of 10 July 2000 he requested the District Court to require the Ministry of the Interior to issue a decision stating that the termination of his service in the police was void and that his lost salary should be paid to him. 18.  On 30 March 2007 the Bratislava I District Court discontinued the proceedings as under the relevant law issues related to a person’s service in the police were to be determined by the Minister of the Interior. That decision became final on 26 May 2007. On 27 June 2007 the District Court transferred the case to the Ministry of the Interior. 19.  On 2 April 2008 the applicant requested the District Court to require the Ministry of the Interior to proceed with the case on the basis of the decision of 30 March 2007. 20.  As stated above, the applicant brought an action for protection of his personal rights against the Ministry of the Interior on 22 May 1995. He alleged, inter alia, that his dismissal and the assessment of his performance in that context interfered with his personal rights. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 21.  On 4 September 1995 the Bratislava I District Court transferred the case to the Bratislava II District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 11 October 1995 the applicant was requested to pay court fees. On 6 December 1995 he asked to be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees. 22.  On 30 January 1996 the Bratislava City Court decided that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava I District Court. The file was transferred to the latter on 1 April 1996. 23.  In the course of April 1996 the Bratislava I District Court asked the applicant to submit information about his situation. It also forwarded the applicant’s action to the defendant for comments. 24.  On 12 August 1996 the Bratislava I District Court transferred the file to the Čadca District Court with the request for the applicant to be heard before that court. On 26 August 1996 the applicant stated before the court in Čadca that he insisted on a hearing being held before the Bratislava I District Court. 25.  On 13 January 1997 the Bratislava I District Court adjourned the case as it was established that the defendant had not been duly summoned. The second hearing, scheduled for 17 February 1997, had to be adjourned for the same reason. 26.  At the third hearing, held on 22 September 1997, the court heard the parties. 27.  In July 1998 the District Court asked the applicant for information about the proceedings concerning the termination of his service in the police. Between July and September 1998 the District Court inquired whether the proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal were pending before the Supreme Court. 28.  Between January and April 1999 the file was examined by the Constitutional Court. 29.  On 28 June 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for exclusion of the Bratislava I District Court judge from dealing with the case. 30.  On 28 December 2000 the Bratislava I District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of claims which the applicant had withdrawn. The court further stayed the proceedings in respect of the applicant’s claim for compensation for damage of a non-pecuniary nature pending a final decision on the applicant’s above claim concerning his dismissal from the police. 31.  On 24 October 2001 the District Court asked the applicant to inform it whether a final decision had been given on his claim concerning termination of his service in the police. 32.  In October 2001 the case was assigned to a different judge. 33.  On 14 October 2002 the District Court judge made an inquiry as to whether a final decision had been given in the proceedings concerning the termination of the applicant’s service in the police. On 20 January 2003 the applicant replied that no final decision had been given yet in the other set of proceedings. On 13 February 2003 the judge adjourned the case for six months on that ground. The case was adjourned for a further six months on 26 August 2003. 34.  On 19 January 2004 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant could not attend as he was ill. 35.  A further hearing was held on 17 March 2004 in the absence of the defendants. 36.  On 28 April 2004 and 2 June 2004 the District Court heard the parties. In a judgment delivered orally on the latter date the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 37.  On 2 July 2004 the judgment was prepared in writing. The judgment with reasons was served on the applicant on 26 July 2004. The applicant appealed on 26 August 2004. 38.  After receiving the defendant’s comments, the District Court submitted the file to the Bratislava Regional Court on 20 October 2004. 39.  The Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 1 December 2005. On 25 November 2005 the applicant informed the court that he was unable to attend due to health problems. 40.  On 1 December 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment of 2 June 2004. 41.  On 27 October 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay in both sets of proceedings concerning the claims of 22 May 1995. 42.  As regards the proceedings for protection of the applicant’s personal rights in particular, the decision stated that the District Court had failed to deal with the case in an appropriate manner. As a result, several substantial delays had occurred and the action had not been determined within one year as was then required by the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Constitutional Court further noted that the case was not complex and that the length of the proceedings could not be imputed to the applicant’s behaviour.
b) Case no. III. ÚS 155/06 43.  On 11 January 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the above two sets of proceedings. He also claimed that his dismissal from the police was null and void. 44.  On 17 May 2006 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint about the length of the proceedings concerning the protection of the applicant’s personal rights. It rejected the remaining complaints for the following reasons. 45.  The Constitutional Court noted that it had been open to the applicant to seek judicial review of the decision on his dismissal from the police within thirty days of its finally taking effect. The applicant had not used that remedy. 46.  The Bratislava I District Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings concerning the validity of his dismissal from the police had become final on 21 November 2000. The complaint about the length of those proceedings had been lodged after the expiry of the two-month time-limit laid down in the Constitutional Court Act 1993. 47.  In its judgment of 12 September 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay in the proceedings for protection of his personal rights. 48.  The Constitutional Court noted that it had already found in its judgment of 27 October 1999 that the District Court had not respected the applicant’s right in issue. In the subsequent period the District Court had failed to deal with the case in an appropriate manner. As a result, delays totalling nearly three years had occurred. The case was not complex and the length of the proceedings could not be imputed to the applicant’s behaviour. As the applicant had exclusively complained of delays imputable to the Bratislava I District Court, the Constitutional Court did not examine the period during which the court of appeal had been dealing with the case. 49.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 50,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of 1,330 euros (EUR) at that time) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
c) Case no. III. ÚS 47/08 50.  On 7 September 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Bratislava I District Court had failed to determine his action of 24 October 2006 and that the Ministry of the Interior had not determined the lawfulness of his dismissal either. 51.  On 7 February 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. The proceedings concerning the applicant’s action in issue had ended on 30 March 2007 (final effect on 26 May 2007). In that respect the applicant had not respected the statutory two-month time-limit. As to the validity of the applicant’s dismissal from the police, the Constitutional Court referred to its above conclusion in case no. III. ÚS 155/06. In any event, it lacked jurisdiction to examine the issue.