4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Trstená. 5.  On 7 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action against two individuals with the Dolný Kubín District Court seeking an order for payment of an amount of money by way of compensation in respect of what he considered to have been unjustified use of his real property. 6.  On 1 October 2007 the District Court heard the case for the first time, but the hearing was adjourned and, on 1 January 2008, the case was transferred to the Námestovo District Court in the context of reorganisation of the judiciary. 7.  On 13 May 2009 the case was heard for the second time and the defendant lodged a counter-claim seeking a ruling declaring him to be the owner of the property in question. 8.  Subsequently, the applicant’s action was stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings on the counter-claim, which was eventually dismissed with final and binding effect as of 12 December 2011. 9.  Between 12 December 2011 and 16 May 2012 the District Court held four hearings, the applicant provided further and better particulars of his claim, and submitted new evidence. 10.  On 30 January 2013 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report on the market value of the compensation to be paid for the use of the property in question. On 12 April 2013 a new expert was appointed because it had turned out that the previous expert was related to the lawyer of the defendants. 11.  The proceedings are still pending. 12.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the President of the Námestovo District Court about the length of the proceedings. 13.  In a letter of reply dated 26 June 2009 the President of the District Court observed that no procedural steps had been taken in the action in 2008 and acknowledged that this amounted to unjustified delay. However, as at that time the proceedings were lawfully stayed, ensuring their acceleration was not practicable. 14.  On 13 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in his action both before the Dolný Kubín District Court and the Námestovo District Court. 15.  On 29 September 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on a number of grounds. It noted first that the action had been dealt with at first instance by two different District Courts. While the applicant had not raised a complaint about any possible delays before the Dolný Kubín District Court with the President of that court at all, he had lodged his constitutional complaint too early after the response of the President of the Námestovo District Court. By doing so, the applicant had failed to allow the President of the Námestovo District Court sufficient time to ensure acceleration of the proceedings. Moreover, as the proceeding before the Dolný Kubín District Court had ended prior to the introduction of the applicant’s constitutional complaint, its part concerning the Dolný Kubín District Court was belated. Lastly, as the case had been pending before the Námestovo District Court only since 1 January 2008, the length of the proceedings before that court was not sufficient to pose any issues under the “reasonable time” requirement.
In closing, the Constitutional Court observed that nothing precluded the applicant from raising a fresh constitutional complaint later.