4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lemešany. 5.  On 10 November 1995 eleven individuals brought a civil action against the applicant in the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd). They claimed that he was using their plot without a title and that he was causing damage to it. They sought an order for vacation of the plot and damages. 6.  Between 16 April 1996 and 29 April 1997 the District Court held 3 hearings, obtained documentary evidence from third parties and inspected the land in question. 7.  On 14 March 1997 the plaintiffs modified the action in that they also sought restoration of the plot in the status quo ante or, alternatively, damages in a higher amount. 8.  Between 10 July 1997 and 15 November 1999 the District Court appointed three construction experts in succession to draw up a report analysing the possibility of restoring the plot. The first expert was discharged shortly after his appointment at his own request as he was on friendly terms with one of the plaintiffs. The second expert was discharged after almost 2 years and 2 months after he was fined for having failed to produce the report despite repeated reminders. The third expert eventually submitted the report on 19 December 2000. 9.  In the meantime, on 18 September 1997, the applicant was ordered to pay an advance on the costs of the expert report. The order was upheld on the applicant's appeal on 28 November 1997. 10.  On 21 December 2000 the District Court ruled on the expert's fees and, on 3 May 2001, the ruling was upheld following the applicant's appeal. 11.  Between 23 April 2002 and 19 February 2003 the District Court held 4 hearings and took various procedural steps. 12.  On 7 August 2002 the applicant lodged a counterclaim in which he maintained that he had acquired the title to the plot at issue by way of prescription. He later modified the counterclaim by contending that he had in fact improved the plot and sought compensation for the improvement. 13.  On 10 July 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to provide further and better particulars of his counterclaim, which the applicant did on 31 July 2003. 14.  On 8 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant would not be exempted from the obligation to pay the court fee for lodging his counterclaim. Without further substantiation, the District Court based the ruling on the observation that the applicant had been awarded just satisfaction by the Constitutional Court (see below). On 16 August 2004 the ruling was upheld on the applicant's appeal, albeit on different grounds. 15.  On 14 December 2004 the plaintiffs' lawyer informed the court that one of the plaintiffs had died and that his heir wished to continue the action in his stead. 16.  In February 2005 the District Court requested the current plaintiffs to amend their claim so as to reflect the fact that one of the original plaintiffs had died and to indicate the questions which they wished to be put to a hygiene expert. They responded on 1 March 2005. 17.  In March 2005 the matter was assigned to a new judge. 18.  On 18 April 2005 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned at the parties' request as they wished to settle the case. 19.  On 26 September 2005 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it dismissed both the 1995 action and the applicant's counterclaim of 2002. It was found that the plot in question belonged to the plaintiffs and that the applicant was using it bona fide. The plaintiffs had failed to show that the applicant had caused them any damage and the applicant had failed to show that the owners had obtained any unjustified advantage at his expense. 20.  In November 2005 both the plaintiffs and the applicant appealed. In June 2006 the plaintiffs paid the court fee for their appeal and the applicant requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee for his appeal. 21.  The appeal proceedings are still pending, a hearing being scheduled for 28 August 2007. 22.  On 22 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He contested the length of the proceedings and claimed 200,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 23.  On 12 March and 4 June 2003, respectively, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). Together with the latter ruling, the Constitutional Court also ordered the District Court to deal with the case promptly; to pay the applicant SKK 20,000[2] by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and to reimburse his legal costs.
The Constitutional Court found that the subject-matter of the proceeding was not particularly complex and that no unjustified delays could be imputed to the applicant. However, the Constitutional Court found that there had been 18 months of unjustified delays caused by complete inactivity or by lack of efficiency on the part of the District Court.
The Constitutional Court determined the amount of the just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant on an “equitable basis” and with reference to Article 41 of the Convention.