4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava. 5.  The applicant's family owned real estate to which the applicant now has the title. It is located in the municipality of Drietomá. 6.  In 1957 a road was built near the property to provide access to a neighbour's property. In 1986 the road was modified. 7.  After the road had been built, changes were made to the Land Registry maps and records in order to designate the road as a separate plot under a separate number and with a separate ownership regime. 8.  Since then the applicant has turned numerous times to the municipal authorities in Drietomá and to all levels of the Land Registry authorities. He claimed that the road had been constructed without the requisite permits; that it served solely the interests of his neighbour, which was unjust; and that it was partly located on his land without valid title, in violation of his property rights. The applicant requested, unsuccessfully, that the legal position be complied with both in the Land Registry records and in reality; that the road be removed; and that he be paid damages. 9.  In a letter of 8 June 1995 the supreme Land Registry body (Úrad geodézie, kartografie a katastra) informed the applicant that his problem could not be solved through the administrative procedure aimed at “restoring original legal borders” (obnovenie hraníc pôvodného právneho stavu) as this procedure only applied to uncontested situations. It was understood that in the applicant's case there was a dispute concerning the border between his property and the road. Such a dispute could only be resolved by a court and the applicant was advised to assert his claims there. 10.  In letters of 9 October and 6 November 1997 the Trenčín district office (Okresný úrad) informed the applicant that the Land Registry had no power to change boundaries of plots and that, in so far as the applicant was seeking such changes, he should bring his claims to the courts. 11.  In a letter of 15 December 1997 the Trenčín regional office (Krajský úrad) informed the applicant that the current Land Registry maps and records in respect of his property had been drawn up and defined in the 1960s and were considered completed. On 1 January 1998 an amendment to the relevant legislation, the Land Registration Act (Law no. 162/1995 Coll.), would enter into force, and would provide for a new administrative procedure aimed at “determination of boundaries” (určenie priebehu hranice). If the applicant believed that the existing Land Registry maps and records interfered with his property rights, from 1 January 1998 he could seek protection of such rights through this procedure. 12.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant brought an action against the district office and the Drietomá municipal office (Obecný úrad) in the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd). He sought a judicial order against the district office, which was in charge of the relevant Land Registry records, requesting it to rectify these records by bringing them into line with his ownership claim. 13.  On 22 January 1998 the District Court instructed the applicant to provide further and better particulars and advised him that, pursuant to sections 48 to 51 of the amended Land Registration Act, since 1 January 1998 boundary disputes fell within the jurisdiction of Land Registry authorities. 14.  On 17 February 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings, observing that at that time land boundary disputes fell to be determined at first instance by district offices in their function as Land Registry authorities. The District Court consequently referred the matter to the Trenčín district office. 15.  On 2 April 2001 the district office sent the matter back to the District Court, holding that it fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts since it concerned protection and restoration of rights in respect of real property. On 26 April 2001 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) upheld this view. 16.  The District Court subsequently re-registered the action under a new file number. 17.  On 17 September 2001 the District Court requested the applicant to pay the court fees. Subsequently, on 5 and 16 October 2001 and 31 January 2002, the applicant repeatedly requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees. The request was dismissed as unfounded and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. 18.  On 24 June 2002 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees. On 4 October 2003 the District Court corrected the decision by adding a proviso to its operative part to the effect that the decision would be rescinded if the fee was paid within the period allowed for an appeal against that decision. On 22 October 2003 the District Court corrected clerical errors in the operative part of the decision. The applicant appealed. 19.  On 23 March 2004 the Trenčín Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings and it thus became final. 20.  On 26 October 2000 the applicant brought a fresh action against the Trenčín district office and the Drietomá municipal office in the District Court. He argued that after his 1998 action had been transmitted to it, the district office had failed to take any steps to resolve the matter despite repeated reminders. The applicant made claims similar to those he had made in 1998. 21.  On 28 August 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. It was observed that the applicant's submissions had been aimed at correcting Land Registry records, which was primarily to be done by the Land Registry authorities and, therefore, fell outside the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. 22.  On 28 January 2002 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 28 August 2001 on the applicant's appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court to continue the proceedings. The Regional Court based its decision on the finding of the Supreme Court of 26 April 2001 in connection with the 1998 action and instructed the District Court to examine whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to join the two actions. 23.  On 21 June 2002 the District Court requested the applicant to provide further and better particulars. He responded on 4 July 2002 and then requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees. 24.  On 26 February the District Court granted the applicant a 30% exemption and on 30 June 2003 on the applicant's appeal the Regional Court granted the applicant a full exemption from the court fees. 25.  On 12 July 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in so far as the action was directed against the municipal office. The District Court held that the municipal office was a body of the municipality. It had no legal personality of its own and, therefore, could not be a party to court proceedings. This shortcoming could not be corrected, as the applicant had suggested, by “replacing” the municipal office as the defendant by the municipality, because a defendant who did not exist in law could not be replaced by another entity. 26.  On 17 August and 31 October 2005, respectively, the District Court and, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court declared the applicant's appeal against the decision of 16 July 2005 inadmissible as being out of time. 27.  On 29 December 2005 the applicant filed new claims seeking, inter alia, an order to close the road in question. On 12 January 2006 the District Court decided to join the applicant's submission to the action of 2000. 28.  On 20 February 2006 the District Court requested the applicant to provide further and better particulars and later summoned him for an interview in chambers (informatívny výsluch) in order to explore the legal nature of his submissions. 29.  On 19 April 2006 the District Court interviewed the applicant and informed him that his submissions could not be dealt with as a civil action since they fell short of formal requirements, in particular because of their vagueness and lack of substance. In response, the applicant made a new written submission on 3 May 2006. 30.  In the meantime, the District Court sought information concerning the case from the Drietomá municipality, the land registration authorities and the Trenčín district road traffic authority (obvodný prad pre cestnú dopravu a pozemné komunikácie). 31.  The proceedings are still pending. 32.  On 8 September 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He argued that there had been unjustified delays in the 1998 and 2000 actions and in the proceedings before the Land Registry authorities, and claimed 200,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 33.  On 14 January 2004 the Constitutional Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to assist the applicant. 34.  On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the part of the complaint concerning the delays in the 1998 and 2000 actions admissible and the remainder inadmissible. 35.  On 3 November 2004 the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings in so far as the complaint related to the 1998 action. It was observed that the admissibility of this part of the complaint had already been examined (see paragraph 38 below) and that it could not be examined again. 36.  On 8 December 2004 the Constitutional Court (Third Section) 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) in the 2000 action. At the same time, it ordered the District Court to proceed with the matter promptly and to pay the applicant his legal costs and SKK 10,000[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Constitutional Court found that the subject matter of the proceedings was not particularly complex and that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings to some extent in that his claim had lacked clarity and that he had failed to discharge his obligation to pay the court fees in time. Delays of more than 17 months were imputable to the District Court. It was observed that the proceedings were still pending, that the courts had not held a single hearing, and that the only issue that had been resolved concerned the court fees. 37.  On 11 March 2004, without offering an explanation, the applicant lodged a new constitutional complaint, which was almost identical to his complaint of 8 September 2003. 38.  On 31 August 2004, under a different file number, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible in respect of the 2000 action and inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded in respect of the 1998 action. 39.  On 14 January 2005 the Constitutional Court (Fourth Section) delivered a judgment (nález) which was substantially the same as that of 8 December 2004. Making no mention of the judgment of 8 December 2004, the judgment of 14 January 2005 varied slightly in its reasoning and in the amount of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant, namely SKK 20,000[3].