4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Tvrdošín. 5.  On 27 June 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his job in a private company due to its restructuring. Subsequently the applicant brought proceedings against the company before the Dolný Kubín District Court in which he claimed arrears of salary. The Dolný Kubín District Court granted the applicant’s claim on 3 February 1998. 6.  On 31 May 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court declared the defendant company bankrupt. On 28 July 1999 the applicant registered his claim against the debtor in the bankruptcy proceedings. 7.  On 13 December 1999 the administrator in bankruptcy asked to be replaced in that function due to serious health problems. On 21 January 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court appointed a new administrator. 8.  On 19 October 2000 the Regional Court authorised the administrator to pay outstanding salary to the single remaining employee of the company in bankruptcy. 9.  On 6 December 2000 the administrator informed the Regional Court that the means of the company did not suffice to cover his expenses. On 26 January 2001 the Regional Court authorised the administrator to sell several obsolete objects of negligible value with a view to obtaining financial means. 10.  On 23 February 2001 a hearing was held before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. The administrator submitted a report on the debtor company’s property and his activity. The report stated that it was doubtful whether any means could be obtained with a view to satisfying the creditors. At the hearing the court acknowledged that the applicant’s claim in respect of the debtor company was justified. 11.  On 19 November 2003 the administrator informed the court that he expected to submit his final report before 31 January 2004. Following the Regional Court’s inquiry of 29 September 2004, the administrator submitted the report on the company’s property on 1 September 2004. It indicated that the financial means obtained in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings did not suffice even to cover the costs and fees of the administrator. 12.  On 18 October 2004 the Regional Court quashed the declaration of bankruptcy as the debtor’s property was insufficient. The decision became final on 25 November 2004. 13.  In July 1997 the applicant started working in a different company. He was dismissed from his job, due to restructuring of the company, on 28 February 1998. 14.  In 1998 the applicant filed an action against the company claiming arrears of salary and a severance payment. On 26 August 1998 the company acknowledged the debt. On 9 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica District Court awarded the equivalent of approximately 750 euros plus default interest to the applicant. The judgment became final on 5 October 1998. 15.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant filed a motion with an executions officer and requested enforcement of the sum in issue. On 18 January 1999 the Banská Bystrica District Court appointed the executions officer to enforce the judgment. 16.  On 5 February 1999 the executions officer informed the debtor company that enforcement proceedings had been brought against it and that the sum due would be transferred to the applicant from the debtor’s bank account. 17.  On 26 April 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with the executions officer on enforcement of the judgment in issue. Article II of the contract provided that the applicant did not have to pay any advance on costs of the execution to the executions officer. Article VIII indicated that the contract could only be modified upon the agreement in writing of both parties. 18.  On 30 August 1999 the applicant asked the officer to proceed with the execution or, as the case might be, to confirm that the sum was irrecoverable. 19.  On 9 November 1999 the bank informed the executions officer that the sum deposited at the company’s account was insufficient to cover the debt. On 11 November 1999 a different bank informed the officer that the debtor company’s account had been cancelled. 20.  The applicant complained about the inactivity of the executions officer to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry transmitted the complaint to the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers on 10 April 2000. The Chamber was requested to notify the Ministry of its reply to the applicant within two months. 21.  On 24 August 2000 the executions officer requested the applicant to pay, within seven days, an advance on costs of the execution failing which the executions officer would ask the District Court to discontinue the proceedings. Reference was made to Section 197(2) of the Judicial Executors and Enforcement Act. The advance requested amounted to the equivalent of approximately 93 euros. The letter further indicated that the applicant could come to the execution officer’s office on 21 September 2000 with a view to settling any queries. 22.  In a letter of 11 September 2000 the applicant replied that, pursuant to the enforcement contract of 26 April 1999, he was not obliged to pay any advance on costs and that no reasons had been given for the request. The applicant stated that he was not opposed to amending the contract provided that it would result in a successful recovery of the debt. 23.  On 26 July 2001 the executions officer filed a motion for the proceedings to be discontinued as the applicant had failed to pay an advance on his costs. 24.  In a letter of 30 July 2001, the Secretary to the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers informed the applicant, in reply to his above complaint, that the executions officer in question had acted in compliance with the law. The letter stated, inter alia, that the executions officer had examined the financial situation of the debtor and that he had filed an execution order with the debtor’s bank. As the bank had informed the executions officer that the debtor did not own any property, the sum due could not be enforced. The letter also stated that the officer had warned the applicant’s lawyer in the applicant’s presence, at the moment when the request for execution had been filed, that the execution would not succeed as the debtor no longer carried on any business activity and owned no property. The executions officer’s request for an advance on costs of the execution was in conformity with Section 197(2) of the Judicial Executors and Enforcement Act. 25.  On 28 November 2001 the Banská Bystrica District Court granted the request of the executions officer and it discontinued the proceedings. The decision was served on the applicant on 11 January 2002. It stated that no appeal was available against it. 26.  The applicant appealed. He alleged that under the contract he had not been obliged to pay any advance on costs of the execution. 27.  On 22 March 2002 the executions officer submitted the file together with an explanation to the District Court. The officer maintained that the relevant law entitled him to request an advance on his costs. Furthermore, he had warned the applicant that the execution was unlikely to succeed as the debtor owned no property. 28.  On 7 May 2002 the District Court obtained a report from the companies register, and it transmitted the case to the appellate court on 20 May 2002. 29.  On 31 May 2002 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court rejected the appeal as being inadmissible as under the relevant law no appeal lay against a decision to discontinue enforcement proceedings on the grounds of the creditor’s failure to pay an advance on costs of the execution. 30.  On 29 August 2002 the Registry of the Court asked the applicant for information as to whether he had used the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution enacted with effect from 1 January 2002. 31.  On 9 September 2002 the applicant replied that he had exhausted all available remedies at the time when he had lodged his application in 2000. He maintained that he was not required to use the newly introduced remedy as his case was pending before the Court. At the same time, the applicant admitted that the originally alleged violation of his right resulting from delays in recovering the sums in question still remained and that, in the meantime, new violations had occurred as a result of the subsequent developments in his cases. He referred, in particular, to his submissions to the Court of 21 May 2002.