5.  The applicant, a Slovak citizen born in 1921, lived in Košice. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 10 December 1991 the applicant filed an action with the District Court in Prešov. He claimed the transfer of ownership of real property under the Land Ownership Act 1991. 8.  In the course of 1992 the District Court scheduled three hearings and ordered an expert opinion. In 1993 two hearings were held. The District Court obtained an expert opinion. After an inspection of the site, it asked the expert for additional information. The parties submitted their comments on the expert opinions. 9.  On 21 January 1994 the District Court found that the applicant was the owner of the property in issue. On 15 November 1994 the Regional Court in Košice quashed that judgment. 10.  In the first half of 1995 the District Court obtained further evidence. It held hearings on 31 July and 16 October 1995. On 19 October 1995 it dismissed the applicant’s action. On 10 June 1996 the Regional Court in Košice quashed that decision as being erroneous. 11.  After having obtained additional evidence and having scheduled two hearings, the District Court delivered a new judgment on 28 May 1997. It found that the applicant was the owner of the property and decided to determine separately the remaining claim, namely that the defendants should vacate the property. 12.  On 28 July 1997 the defendants appealed. The file was submitted to the court of appeal on 1 October 1997. On 16 April 1998 the applicant claimed that the first-instance judgment of 28 May 1997 should be rectified. 13.  On 21 April 1998 the Regional Court in Prešov ordered the District Court to determine, within twenty days, the applicant’s ownership claim in respect of a house which the first-instance judgment did not cover. The District Court determined that issue in the applicant’s favour in a judgment given on 20 May 1998. The defendants appealed. On 27 August 1998 the Regional Court in Prešov confirmed the first-instance decision in respect of the house. It dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of the remaining real property. 14.  On 10 November 1998 and 1 December 1998 respectively the applicant and the defendants appealed on points of law. On 30 March 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s above decision dismissing a part of the applicant’s claim. 15.  One of the defendants died on 1 August 1999. On 20 September 1999 the Regional Court in Prešov held a hearing. On 20 December 1999 it upheld the first-instance decisions of 28 May 1997 and 20 May 1998 by which the ownership right in respect of the real property in issue was transferred to the applicant. On 6 March 2000 one of the defendants filed an appeal on points of law. 16.  On 6 June 2000 the file was submitted to the Supreme Court. On 15 May 2001 the case was returned to the District Court as the defendants alleged that their names were incorrectly mentioned in the judgments of 20 May 1998 and 20 October 1999. After it had obtained relevant documentary evidence, the District Court concluded that rectification of its judgment was not required. It returned the case to the Supreme Court on 8 July 2002. 17.  On 28 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Regional Court of 20 December 1999 to the extent that it concerned the transfer of ownership of a part of the real property. The Supreme Court noted, in particular, that the Regional Court had disregarded, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the legally binding view expressed in the Supreme Court’s judgment of 30 March 1999. On 21 May 2003 the Regional Court in Prešov quashed the corresponding part of the first-instance judgment. 18.  The file was returned to the District Court on 20 June 2003. It heard four witnesses on 24 November 2003. The parties failed to appear on 12 February 2004. On 5 May 2004 the case was adjourned as the file was with the Constitutional Court. The District Court held three hearings between 14 June 2004 and 15 November 2004. 19.  On 8 March 2005 the District Court decided to obtain an expert opinion. The expert submitted his opinion on 2 September 2005. On 23 September 2005 the District Court decided on the expert’s fees. On 10 October 2005 the applicant requested that a second expert opinion be obtained. On 11 October 2005 he appealed against the decision on the fees of the expert. The Prešov Regional Court decided on the appeal on 22 May 2006. The decision on the expert’s fees became final on 21 August 2006. 20.  The case was assigned to a different judge of the District Court on 3 July 2006 and 1 August 2007. 21.  The proceedings are pending. 22.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant complained under Article 127 of the Constitution that there had been excessive delays in the above proceedings before the Prešov District Court, the Prešov Regional Court and the Supreme Court. 23.  On 23 April 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. As a different constitutional remedy had been available to the applicant at the time when the first-instance and appeal court’s decisions had been given, the Constitutional Court could not, under Article 127 of the Constitution enacted with effect from 1 January 2002, examine the alleged delays in the proceedings before the District Court and the Regional Court which had ended in 1999. 24.  The Constitutional Court further found that in his submissions the applicant complained of the conduct of the Supreme Court in the proceedings leading to its decision of 30 March 1999. As the proceedings complained of had ended, that part of the application was also manifestly ill-founded.
b)  Complaint of 5 May 2002 25.  On 5 May 2002 the applicant filed a new complaint alleging that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the appeal on points of law against the Prešov Regional Court’s judgment of 20 December 1999. The applicant claimed the equivalent of approximately 2,350 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction. 26.  On 25 September 2002 the Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the Supreme Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to pay 10,000 Slovakian korunas[1] to the applicant as just satisfaction. When awarding the above sum to the applicant the Constitutional Court had regard to the applicant’s argument that the proceedings concerning his action had lasted more than ten years.
c)  Complaint of 30 January 2004 27.  On 30 January 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of the proceedings concerning his action of 1991. He identified the Prešov District Court, the Košice Regional Court, the Prešov Regional Court and the Supreme Court as the authorities responsible for a violation of his rights under Article 48 (2) of the Constitution and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant also requested that the District Court, before which the case was pending, should proceed with it without further delay. 28.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint on 10 June 2004. It held that it could not repeatedly examine those parts of the proceedings which were covered by its earlier decisions. 29.  The Constitutional Court examined the proceedings before the District Court after 30 April 2002 (the date when its decision of 23 April 2002 had become final) and also the proceedings before the Supreme Court after 26 October 2002 (the date on which its decision of 25 September 2002 had become final). It found no unjustified delays in the relevant parts of the proceedings.