4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Viničné. 5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava Regional Court against a limited liability company. She claimed, among other issues, to have the right to consult the company's documentation and to enter its premises. In this way the applicant wished to receive information allowing her to lodge an action for damages against the company. The Supreme Court, on appeal, found in her favour. The decision was served on the applicant on 7 July 2003, it thus became final. 6.  At the applicant's request, on 29 September 2003, the Pezinok District Court appointed an enforcement officer to enforce the above decision. Due to the inactivity of the enforcement officer, the applicant requested that the decision be enforced by a court. The enforcement by the enforcement officer was discontinued on 9 March 2005. 7.  The enforcement proceedings were then pending before the Bratislava III District Court. On 14 April 2005 they were discontinued on the ground that the defendant company had been dissolved and wound up. The decision became final on 17 May 2005. 8.  In the meantime, on 18 April 2005, the applicant complained about the inactivity of the enforcement officer to the Association of Enforcement Officers. On 24 October 2005 the complaint was rejected as being manifestly ill-founded. On 19 March 2007 the Ministry of Justice concluded that the applicant's complaint was justified. It informed the enforcement officer that no disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. 9.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant complained before the Constitutional Court about, among other issues, the overall length of the proceedings. On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the complaint about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court held that the civil proceedings had ended on 7 July 2003, that is more than two months before the applicant had lodged the constitutional complaint. As regards the period of the enforcement by the enforcement officer, it held that the applicant did not use the available remedies pursuant to the Act on Enforcement Officers and Enforcement Proceedings, that is a complaint against an enforcement officer or a request that her case be assigned to another enforcement officer. It examined the period of the enforcement proceedings pending before the District Court and found no delays in that phase. 10.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as being manifestly ill-founded and noted that at the time when the applicant had requested enforcement of the judgment of 2003, the defendant company had already been dissolved. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 14 November 2005.