4.  The first applicant, Mrs Darina Solárová, was born in 1952 and resides in Košice. She is the wife of the second applicant, Mr Juraj Solár, born in 1947 and resident at the same address in Košice. The third applicant, Mrs Eva Domiková, was born in 1956 and resides in Brno (the Czech Republic). The third applicant is the sister of the second applicant. 5.  On 17 August 1998 an aunt of the second and the third applicants died. In her last wills of 6 June 1996 and of 25 May 1998 respectively, she designated the applicants as her heirs in respect of her immovable property. 6.  On 27 October 1998 a third person claimed that the testator had made a last will in her favour in 1993. The notary public referred her to a civil court with a view to having the issue determined. 7.  On 27 November 1998 the person concerned filed an action with the Košice II District Court. She challenged the validity of the wills in favour of the applicants. The plaintiff alleged that, in 1993, the testator had made a last will in her favour devising the immovable property to her. She further stated that the last wills of 1996 and 1998 were null and void as at the time when they had been made the testator’s mental faculties had been reduced. 8.  On 9 December 1998 the District Court judge asked to withdraw from the case. The file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 14 January 1999. The Regional Court granted the judge’s request on 27 January 1999. The file was returned to the District Court on 24 February 1999. The case was assigned to a different judge on 20 April 1999. 9.  On 29 April 1999 the judge communicated the action to the applicants. The applicants submitted their observations on 14 and 24 May 1999. 10.  A hearing scheduled for 8 September 1999 was adjourned at the request of the plaintiff. Further hearings were held on 5 October 1999 and 15 November 1999. The case was adjourned because of the plaintiff’s absence. 11.  Between 17 January 2000 and 13 March 2000 the District Court held three hearings at which several witnesses were examined. On 2 March 2001 the court appointed an expert in psychiatry with a view to establishing whether the testator had had testamentary capacity at the relevant time. The parties were ordered to pay an advance on the expert’s costs. On 20 March 2001 the first applicant challenged the decision on the expert’s costs. 12.  On 8 December 2000 the applicants complained to the President of the District Court about delays in the proceedings. On 1 February 2001 the third applicant requested that a hearing be scheduled in the case. 13.  On 7 July 2001 the first applicant challenged the District Court judge. On 6 September 2001 the Supreme Court excluded the Regional Court judge concerned from deciding on the first applicant’s motion of 7 July 2001. The case was assigned to a different Regional Court judge. On 22 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision concerning the applicants’ obligation to pay an advance on the costs of the expert. It further decided that the District Court judge was not biased. 14.  On 26 July 2002 the expert submitted his opinion. The first and the second applicants submitted their comments on 9 September 2002. 15.  On 3 February and 3 March 2003 the District Court held hearings. The case had to be adjourned in view of the plaintiff’s absence. 16.  On 31 March 2003 the District Court granted the plaintiff’s claim and declared the last wills of 1996 and of 1998 null and void. The reasoned judgment was finalised on 11 June 2003. 17.  On 13 June 2003 the case was transferred to a different judge of the District Court. 18.  On 30 June and 2 July 2003 the applicants appealed. On 12 September 2003 the first applicant paid the appeal fee. 19.  The case was submitted to the Regional Court in Košice on 23 October 2003. As the presiding judge had been excluded, the case was transferred to a different chamber on 18 December 2003. On 18 February 2004 the applicants submitted further grounds for their appeal. 20.  On 21 April 2004 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 31 March 2003. The file was returned to the District Court on 28 May 2004. 21.  On 16 June 2004 a police authority requested the case file. On 13 September 2004 the District Court submitted the file to the police authority. The file was returned to the District Court on 25 October 2004. 22.  On 18 January 2005 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 27 April 2005. The plaintiff did not appear on the latter date. The court heard the applicants. 23.  On 20 June 2005 the District Court dismissed the action holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the wills which she contested were null and void. It further ordered the plaintiff to reimburse the applicants’ costs. 24.  On 24 August 2005 the plaintiff appealed. She paid the court fees on 6 September 2005. On 19 September 2005 the file was transmitted to the court of appeal. 25.  On 24 March 2006 the Regional Court in Košice upheld the first‑instance judgment of 20 June 2005. On 3 May 2006 the first and the second applicants requested that errors in the reasons contained in the judgment of the court of appeal be rectified. 26.  On 1 June 2006 the plaintiff filed an appeal on points of law. The cassation proceedings are pending. 27.  On 4 June 2003 the third applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution about the unfairness and excessive length of the proceedings before the Košice II District Court. She claimed that the District Court’s judgment of 31 March 2003 should be quashed. 28.  On 5 May 2004 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. It rejected the remainder of the third applicant’s submissions as being manifestly ill‑founded. 29.  On 9 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the third applicant’s constitutional right to have the case decided without undue delays. The decision stated that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 17 March 2000 until 2 March 2001 and also from 9 August 2002 until 15 January 2003. The District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an effective manner as a result of which the case had not been determined within a reasonable time. 30.  The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without delay. It awarded the third applicant 15,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK), payable within two months, as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The District Court was also ordered to reimburse the third applicant the costs of the constitutional proceedings within one month. 31.  On 16 February 2005 the first and the second applicants complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the Košice II District Court. 32.  On 22 June 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated their constitutional right in issue. It pointed to the periods of inactivity of the District Court as mentioned its above finding of 9 June 2004. It also held that the District Court had proceeded with the case in an ineffective manner. 33.  The Constitutional Court ordered that the District Court should (i) proceed with the case without delay, (ii) pay the first and the second applicants SKK 15,000[2] each, within two months, as just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, and (iii) reimburse the applicants the costs of the constitutional proceedings within one month.