4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 15 May 1991 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for restitution of real property to the Bratislava V District Court. 7.  On 11 January 1994 the District Court dismissed the action. On 12 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court remitted the case to the District Court following an appeal by the applicant. 8.  On 23 June 1995 the District Court again dismissed the action. On 14 December 1995 the court of appeal upheld the relevant part of the first‑instance judgment. On 20 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's judgment. The case was remitted to the District Court. 9.  In its third judgment given on 18 February 1999 the District Court decided in the applicant's favour. On 17 March 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed that judgment in part. In December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law filed by other plaintiff. 10.  On 5 March 2003 the District Court granted the action. On 30 March 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment in part and remitted it to the first-instance court; it dismissed the remainder of the claim. 11.  On 29 April 2005 the Supreme Court quashed a part of the court of appeal's judgment a remitted the case to it. 12.  On 30 June 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings. The decision was served on the parties on 30 August 2005. 13.  On 18 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The facts of the case were complex and the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court awarded 70,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.