4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Mokroluh. 5. On 28 August 1990 the applicant and his wife filed an action with the Bardejov District Court. They claimed that the defendant should be prohibited from entering the plots of land in their ownership and from interfering with their right to peacefully enjoy that property. They also requested that an interim measure should be issued. In the action, the plaintiffs stated, inter alia, that one of the relevant plots had been expropriated from them by the Bardejov National Committee decision of 29 June 1990 which, however, had not yet become final as the appellate proceedings in this respect were still pending. 6.  On 27 April 1991 the court asked the defendant to submit comments on the action. It reiterated the request on 10 May 1991. On 19 December 1991 the court invited the applicant to specify the relevant plots of land. 7.  On 18 September 1992 the court held a hearing where it requested the applicant to rectify shortcomings in the action and to submit relevant documents. On 24 September 1992 the applicant submitted his amended action to the court. 8.  On 28 September 1992 and on 17 November 1992 respectively the court sent by registered mail the amended action to the defendant for comments. The delivery of the letter failed twice as the defendant was not present at his domicile. 9.  On 28 September 1992 the court asked an administrative authority to inform it about expropriation proceedings concerning one of the plots of land. On 30 November 1992 the administrative authority submitted a decision indicating that the appeal of the applicant and of his wife against the expropriation decision had been dismissed on 23 November 1990. The decision on expropriation of the plot of land had thus become final. 10.  At a hearing held on 10 December 1992 the applicant challenged the District Court judge. On 27 January 1993 the Košice Regional Court refused to exclude the judge from hearing the case. 11.  The court held hearings on 22 February 1993 and on 5 March 1993. On the latter date, the applicant withdrew his request for an interim measure and modified the action in that he claimed that the defendant and his wife should allow him to pass across plots of land. 12.  On 1 April 1993 the court appointed an expert. The parties paid an advance on costs of the expert examination. 13.  On 24 May 1993 the District Court rejected the action with respect to the applicant’s wife and discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s claim. The court also quashed the decision of 1 April 1993 on the appointment of an expert. The applicant appealed on 18 June 1993. The case file was submitted to the court of appeal on 2 August 1993. 14.  On 14 September 1993 the Košice Regional Court quashed the District Court decision and remitted the case to the first instance court. 15.  At a hearing held on 8 February 1994 the District Court judge considered one of the defendant’s statements as a challenge to his impartiality and submitted the case to the Košice Regional Court. On 25 March 1994 the Regional Court held that by the statement in issue the defendant had not challenged the judge and returned the case file to the District Court. 16.  The District Court held hearings on 20 May 1994, on 12 September 1994 and on 31 October 1994. On the last mentioned date the applicant submitted an additional claim for restoration of a plot of land. On the same date the District Court granted the request of the advocate, appointed by the applicant as from 20 May 1994, and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a set of proceedings brought against the applicant and his wife. Those proceedings concerned an action for restoration of plots of land and were registered under the Bardejov District Court file No. 7C 554/94 (see point 3 below). They ended on 8 May 1996 when the court of appeal upheld the first instance judgment. 17.  On 23 January 1997 the District Court inquired whether the dispute in issue had been settled in the meantime. On 5 February 1997 the applicant and his wife replied that no settlement had been reached with the defendants and that they maintained their claims. 18.  On 24 October 1997 the court decided to resume the proceedings. On 12 November 1997 it held a hearing in which the applicant modified his claim. On 13 November 1997 the court requested the Bardejov District Office to submit a case file concerning the expropriation proceedings against the applicant. Prior to 4 May 1998 the court urged the District Office to submit the file on five occasions. 19.  The District Court held hearings on 10 September 1998 (witnesses proposed by the defendants were heard) as well as on 22 and 30 September 1998. 20.  On 30 September 1998 the Bardejov District Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the claim concerning the right to pass across a plot of land. It further decided to deal in a separate set of proceedings with the claim for restoration of a plot of land (the Bardejov District Court file No. 8C 1731/98 - see point 2 below). The judgment became final on 20 November 1998. 21.  On 17 July 2001 the Bardejov District Court delivered a decision, in the context of the proceedings brought in 1990, by which it returned a sum to the parties which they had paid as an advance on the expert’s costs in 1993. The applicant appealed and complained that the District Court had failed to take the expert evidence in question. 22.  On 31 January 2002 the Prešov Regional Court dismissed the appeal noting that the applicant lacked standing to file it. The decision became final on 20 January 2003. 23.  Following the Bardejov District Court’s decision of 30 September 1998 to separately deal with the applicant’s claim for restoration of a plot of land, the new set of proceedings was registered under number 8C 1731/98. On 16 March 2000 the District Court summoned the parties to a hearing scheduled for 26 April 2000. The defendants requested that the hearing should be postponed. The court granted their request. 24.  On 16 May 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for restoration of the plot of land. The court established, after having heard the parties and examined documentary evidence that the relevant plot of land had not been duly expropriated and had been incorrectly considered as being in State ownership. It had been allocated to the defendants in 1989 who had become its owners in accordance with the relevant law in 1992. The court noted that the applicant should have claimed restitution of the land in question under the Land Ownership Act of 1991 within the time‑limit laid down therein. 25.  On 1 June 2000 the applicant appealed. He claimed that the first instance judgment was flawed and arbitrary. He requested that the Slovak Republic should also be joined as a defendant in the case as its authorities were liable for the unlawful transfer of the land to the defendants in 1989. 26.  On 18 September 2000 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment of 16 May 2000. The court of appeal confirmed that the first instance court had correctly established the relevant facts and had decided in accordance with the relevant law. The Regional Court recalled that the Code of Civil Procedure did not allow a further defendant to join a case at the stage of appeal proceedings. The decision became final on 31 October 2000. 27.  On 23 September 1994 a Roman-Catholic parochial office filed an action against the applicant and his wife claiming restitution of several plots of land. On 5 and 19 October 1994 the court invited the plaintiff to rectify shortcomings in the action. The plaintiff replied in its letters of 19 October 1994 and of 2 November 1994. The court held hearings on 15 and on 29 December 1994. 28.  On 29 December 1994 the District Court dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed on 6 February 1995. 29.  On 8 May 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment of 29 December 1994. The decision became final on 8 July 1996. 30.  On 21 June 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging, inter alia, a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the Bardejov District Court proceedings 8C 352/92 and 8C 1731/98 – see points 1 and 2 above). 31.  On 30 September 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for falling short of the statutory requirements. The decision stated, in particular, that the lawyer representing the applicant had not substantiated the complaint despite an explicit request to that effect. 32.  In 2000 the applicant brought a new set of proceedings against the same defendants challenging their ownership rights in respect of one of the plots of land. These proceedings are apparently still pending. 33.  In 2001 the applicant sued the State represented by the Ministry of Justice for damages. He relied on the courts’ decisions given in the proceedings concerning his claim for restoration of a plot of land (the Bardejov District Court file No. 8C 1731/98). The final decision in respect of one of the applicant’s claims was given on 21 April 2004. The proceedings concerning the outstanding claim are still pending.