4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Martin. 5.  A person whom the applicant operated on vertebrae after a traffic accident alleged that her health was permanently damaged due to malpractice in the course of the surgery. 6.  The police opened criminal proceedings in that respect on 27 October 2004. In the course of 2005 the police investigator heard several witnesses and obtained the opinion of an expert. 7.  On 30 December 2005 the investigator accused the applicant of having damaged the patient’s health. On 23 February 2006 a public prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision. 8.  Between 11 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 three institutions informed the investigator that they were not in a position to review the expert’s opinion for various reasons. On 13 June 2006 the investigator heard three witnesses. 9.  On 28 August 2006 the investigator appointed a different institution with a view to obtaining a second expert opinion. 10.  On 16 February 2007 the injured party submitted the opinion of an expert elaborated in the context of civil proceedings concerning her claim for damages. 11.  On 21 May 2007 the institution appointed to submit an opinion on 28 August 2006 informed the investigator that all its experts considered themselves biased as they knew the applicant as a physician. 12.  On 1 June 2007 a different expert was appointed who submitted his opinion on 9 July 2007. 13.  After having taken further evidence the investigator proposed that the proceedings be discontinued on 28 August 2007. On 28 November 2007 a public prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings. 14.  The injured party filed a complaint on 31 December 2007. On 21 March 2008 a prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The case was returned to the police investigator on 4 April 2008. 15.  In May 2008 the investigator heard the experts and a witness. On 27 May 2008 it appointed an institution in the Czech Republic with a view to obtaining a counter-opinion. Upon the investigator’s request a public prosecutor transmitted the relevant documents, on 27 October 2008, to his Czech counter-part with a view to having them delivered to the institution concerned. The latter submitted the counter-opinion on 22 October 2009. 16.  On 25 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings. It held that their duration was due to difficulties of an objective nature in obtaining relevant expert evidence. 17.  On 12 February 2010 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the facts imputed to the applicant had not occurred. 18.  On 2 June 2010 a public prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision and then discontinued the proceedings on a different ground, namely that the facts in issue do not constitute a criminal offence.