4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  In 1964 the applicant’s grandfather died and inheritance proceedings were instituted. 6.  On 12 January 1966 the State Notary approved the inheritance settlement. In the settlement the applicant’s mother waived her right to a share of the estate although her legal capacity was restricted. An apartment in which she lived with the applicant was included in the estate. 7.  In 1983 the property in issue was confiscated by the State. 8.  In 1991 the heirs under the inheritance settlement of 1966 applied for the property in restitution proceedings, signed a restitution agreement and became owners of the property. 9.  On 17 August 1992 the applicant requested the State Notary Bratislava I that the inheritance settlement be served on her. 10.  After its receipt, on 9 October 1992, the applicant appealed against the settlement to the Bratislava City Court. 11.  On 8 December 1993 the Bratislava City Court dismissed the appeal. 12.  On 14 February 1994 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court. 13.  On 31 August 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Bratislava City Court. 14.  On 2 November 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision of the State Notary of 12 January 1966 and returned it to the Bratislava I District Court. 15.  On 2 January 1995 the Bratislava I District Court appointed a notary to pursue the inheritance proceedings. 16.  On 5 March 1996 the Bratislava I District Court issued a decision. 17.  On 22 March 1996 the applicant appealed. 18.  On 5 September 1996 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision and returned it to the Bratislava I District Court. 19.  On 15 May 1997 the Bratislava I District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court. Those proceedings ended with the Bratislava Regional Court’s decision of 8 November 2004. 20.  After receipt of a certificate of ownership of the property in issue, the Bratislava I District Court, on 28 May 2007, discontinued the proceedings stating that the deceased did not possess any estate at the time when the decision was made. 21.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant appealed against the decision.
 2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 23 December 1996 22.  On 23 December 1996 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava I District Court for the determination of the property in her grandfather’s estate. 23.  On 11 March 2005 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the current owner of the estate had not been included in the applicant’s action as a defendant. 24.  Subsequently, the applicant appealed. 25.  On 10 November 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the decision. It stated that the applicant had not proved any pressing need for the determination of the property in the estate and that her right to claim the property in issue had lapsed after the restitution proceedings which had ended in 1991. According to the court’s reasoning previous legal transactions prevented the applicant from claiming that the property still continued to belong to the estate. 26.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court. 27.  On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible.
 3. Constitutional proceedings 28.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about a violation of her right to inheritance and the right to a fair trial in the proceedings concerning the action of 23 December 1996. The applicant also complained about the length of the inheritance proceedings. 29.  On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint concerning the length of the inheritance proceedings admissible and decided to deal with the remaining complaints separately. 30.  On 8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing without unjustified delay in the inheritance proceedings. 31.  It ordered the Bratislava I District Court to proceed without delay and awarded 50,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), (the equivalent of 1,325 euros (EUR) at that time), to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Bratislava I District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs. 32.  On 19 June 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the remaining complaints. The Constitutional Court stated that the decision of the Bratislava Regional Court was not arbitrary and therefore there was no violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing. Concerning the alleged breach of the right to property, it held that it lacked authority to deal with the complaint. 33.  On 5 June 2008 the applicant lodged a second complaint with the Constitutional Court complaining about a breach of her rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the decision of the Bratislava I District Court of 28 May 2007 to discontinue the inheritance proceedings. 34.  On 7 July 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint admissible.