4.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Košice. 5.  On 8 May 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Poprad District Court. She sued a private company which had constructed a building on her plot of land. The applicant claimed that legal relations between her and the defendant be settled and that easement be imposed in that context. 6.  On 30 May 1995 the defendant submitted observations on the applicant’s claim. He informed the court that a similar issue was being determined in a different set of proceedings pending before the appellate court. 7.  In July 1995 the parties submitted further information at the court’s request. Subsequently the judge dealing with the case sought to obtain the file concerning the other set of proceedings allegedly relating to the same issue. That file was returned from the appellate court on 31 May 1996. On 6 June 1996 the District Court asked the applicant to submit further information. The applicant replied on 15 July 1996. On 14 August 1996 the District Court asked the applicant to pay the court fee. 8.  At a hearing held on 13 September 1996 the applicant modified her claim. The defendant submitted observations in reply on 3 October 1996. 9.  On 9 March 1998 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 3 April 1998. On the latter date as well as on 4 May 1998 the case was adjourned as the parties had stated that they would attempt to reach a settlement. 10.  On 5 June 1998 the District Court decided to obtain further information concerning the value of the land in question. That information was submitted to it on 6 July 1998. 11.  On 28 July 1998 the District Court invited the applicant to pay an advance on the expert’s costs. The applicant paid the sum on 7 August 1998. 12.  On 11 March 1999 the court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion within forty days. The file was submitted to the expert on 16 March 1999. Subsequently the District Court repeatedly urged the expert to submit the opinion. On 24 March 2000 the expert informed the court that the advance payment of his costs should be increased. On 8 August 2000 the applicant objected to the expert’s request. On 9 November 2000 the District Court requested that the expert should return the file to it. 13.  The applicant filed several complaints about the length of the proceedings. On 10 November 2000 the President of the Poprad District Court dismissed the complaints. The letter stated that the expert opinion had not been submitted due to illness of the expert and that the judge would consider the possibility of appointing a different expert. Reference was further made to the heavy workload of the judges. 14.  On 11 January 2001 the District Court appointed a different expert with a view to obtaining an opinion. On 25 January 2001 the second expert informed the court that he was not in a position to elaborate an opinion due to his heavy workload. 15.  On 13 March 2001 the District Court appointed a third expert. On 29 March 2001 the latter asked for his appointment to be revoked as he was ill. 16.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant informed the court that a settlement of the case was envisaged. 17.  On 18 June 2001 the applicant informed the District Court that a settlement had been reached between the parties and that she therefore wished to withdraw her action. On this ground the District Court discontinued the proceedings by a decision of 20 June 2001.