4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and and lives in Bratislava. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 30 August 1991 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava III District Court. She claimed that the defendants should be restrained from trespassing on her plot of land and from damaging her property and ordered to compensate her for damage. 7.  In the course of 1991 both parties made submission to the court. The applicant submitted further claims. 8.  On 5 March 1992 the District Court adjourned the case. The applicant was invited to specify her claims in which, inter alia, she contested the validity of a purchase contract which she had concluded with the defendants in 1982. The applicant submitted further documents on 9 March 1992. The defendants commented on them on 31 March and on 13 April 1992. 9.  Hearings were held on 26 May 1992, on 1 July 1992 and on 3 September 1992. Between the hearings the applicant continued submitting further documents. 10.  On 16 October 1992 the District Court decided to obtain expert opinion on the applicant’s legal capacity at the time when she had signed the contract in 1982. On 9 November 1992 the applicant appealed claiming that she was unable to pay an advance on the expert’s fee. She withdrew the appeal on 20 January 1992. The file was transmitted to the expert on 27 November 1992. The expert submitted her opinion on 16 February 1993. On 23 March 1993 the court decided on the expert’s fee. 11.  In July and August 1993 the applicant made further submissions to the court. 12.  On 24 September 1993 the court scheduled a hearing for 3 December 1993. It was adjourned to 14 December 1993 at the applicant’s request. On 14 December 1993 and on 31 January 1994 the case had to be adjourned as the expert could not attend. 13.  A hearing was held on 7 June 1994. In the course of June and July 1994 the parties submitted further documents to the court. 14.  On 20 September 1994 the court heard the parties. The case was adjourned as the expert did not appear. On the same day the court gave a decision refusing to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee. The applicant appealed against that decision on 12 October 1994. 15.  On 27 October 1994 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the validity of the purchase contract of 1982 on the ground that the applicant’s right to challenge the contract had lapsed. It further found that the remainder of the action, as specified by the applicant on 4 March 1992, concerned compensation for damage. The court decided to deal with that claim in a separate set of proceedings. 16.  On 17 November 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision to dismiss her claim concerning the validity of the purchase contract. She submitted further reasons for her appeal on 3 March 1995. The defendants submitted observations in reply on 10 April 1995. The file was transmitted to the Bratislava City Court on 26 April 1995. 17.  On 20 June 1995 the Bratislava City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 27 October 1994 as well as the first instance decision on the applicant’s obligation to pay the court fee. The appellate court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 14 November 1995. On 6 December 1995 she filed an appeal on points of law. 18.  On 12 April 1996 the District Court invited the applicant to pay the fee in respect of her appeal on points of law. On 22 April 1996 the applicant asked to be exempted from the obligation to pay the fee. 19.  On 2 October 1996 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the cassation fee. On 14 October 1996 the applicant withdrew her above request and she paid the fee. On 7 April 1997 the District Court quashed its decision of 2 October 1996. 20.  The District Court transmitted the file with the applicant’s appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court on 5 March 1998. 21.  On 24 April 1998 the Supreme Court returned the case to the Bratislava III District Court noting that the Bratislava City Court’s judgment of 20 June 1995 had not yet become final. 22.  On 20 August 1998 the applicant’s mother also filed an appeal on points of law against the City Court’s judgment. The defendants submitted their comments in September 1998. The file was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 10 November 1998. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the District Court, on 10 December 1998, as the applicant’s mother had not been requested to pay the cassation fee. Following the District Court’s request on 7 January 1999, the applicant’s mother paid the fee on 15 January 1999. The file was again transmitted to the Supreme Court on 26 January 1999. 23.  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on point of law on 24 March 1999. 24.  As stated above, the Bratislava III District Court decided, on 27 October 1994, to deal in a separate set of proceedings with the applicant’s claim for damages filed on 4 March 1992. 25.  On 27 May 1997 the proceedings relating to this claim were registered under number 7 C 87/97. On 14 July 1998 the same case was again registered under number 12 C 211/98. As both cases concerned the same subject-matter and parties, the proceedings registered under the former number were formally discontinued on 1 August 2001. That decision became final on 2 October 2001. 26.  On 19 August 1998 the District Court requested the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in her action. The applicant replied on 28 August 1998. 27.  On 16 February 2000 the District Court again requested the applicant to bring her submissions into line with the formal requirements. On 14 March 2000 the applicant replied that she had complied with the relevant requirements. She further requested that the proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of proceedings on her application filed with the Court. 28.  On 5 June 2000 the Bratislava III District Court dismissed the request as it found no relevant reason for staying the proceedings. The applicant appealed. 29.  On 13 October 2000 the Bratislava III District Court informed the applicant that her original action was still incomplete and invited her to eliminate formal shortcomings in it. 30.  On 24 November 2000 the District Court discontinued the proceedings No. 12 C 211/98 as it found that the claim did not conform to the formal requirements. On 29 December 2000 the applicant appealed against this decision. 31.  On 31 January 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance decision of 5 June 2000 by which the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed had been dismissed. 32.  On 26 February 2002 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings delivered on 24 November 2000. That decision thus became final on 29 April 2002. The Regional Court concluded that, despite several requests, the applicant had failed to describe the relevant facts and to sufficiently specify the claim on which the courts were called upon to decide. 33.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Bratislava Regional Court’s decision. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law on 28 May 2003. 34.  On 3 April 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force since 1 January 2002. She alleged, inter alia, a violation of her right to a hearing without undue delay in the proceedings registered under No. 7 C 87/97 and in the proceedings concerning the validity of the purchase contract of 1982. 35.  On 3 December 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. Since the proceedings concerning the validity of the purchase contract had ended on 24 March 1999, the applicant’s complaint in their respect was submitted after the expiry of the statutory two months’ time‑limit. As to the complaint about the length of Bratislava III District Court proceedings No. 7 C 87/97, the Constitutional Court found that final decision had been given in 2001. However, it could only entertain such complaints where the proceedings complained of were pending at the moment when a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution was filed.