4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. He has thus far brought more than 120 cases under the Convention (see, for example, Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 9845/06, 13 December 2011, with further references). 5.  On 9 January 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Bardejov District Court (Okresný súd) against the City of Bardejov. He argued that modifications had been carried out without his knowledge and consent on the defendant’s real property and that this encumbered access to his own property. He claimed a judicial order that the defendant “put [its] property in such a state as to enable problem-free access by car or other means to [the applicant’s property]”.
The action was registered with the District Court under file no. 3C 15/01. 6.  On 7 June 2004, following the applicant’s appeal (odvolanie), the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed a first-instance judgment of 11 February 2003 to dismiss the action and remitted to case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court of Appeal found that the first-instance court had erred in hearing the action on 11 February 2003 in the absence of the applicant despite his having excused himself one day before on health-related grounds. 7.  On 30 December 2005, following the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court again quashed a first instance judgment (of 3 February 2005) to dismiss the action and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court of Appeal found that the first-instance court had erred in that it had failed to instruct the applicant on how to formulate his claim properly. 8.  On 10 August 2006 and 25 January 2007, respectively, the District Court and, following the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court declared the action inadmissible on the ground that, despite a previous request and a warning, the applicant had failed to formulate his claims in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements and the instructions in the Regional Court’s judgment of 30 December 2005 (see the preceding paragraph). The decision became final and binding on 15 March 2007. 9.  On 1 July 2009, following the applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolanie), the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the decisions of 10 August 2006 and 25 January 2007 (see the preceding paragraph). It found that the lower courts had failed adequately to inform the applicant on the shortcomings of his submissions and ways of correcting them. The District Court’s decision moreover lacked proper reasoning. In addition, Supreme Court considered it striking and prompting doubts as to the conclusion of the lower courts that the applicant’s submissions were rejected more than five years after the introduction of his action and after it had been decided upon twice on the merits. 10.  Since the Supreme Court’s judgment of 1 July 2009 (see the preceding paragraph), the case has been pending, presently on appeal. 11.  In the course of the proceedings numerous procedural matters have been examined and resolved at one or two levels of jurisdiction such as, for example, the procedural standing of the applicant’s wife, exemption of the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fees (including questions related to the couple’s financial standing), the applicant’s proposal for an in‑court settlement, and modifications to the particulars of the applicant’s claim. 12.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant filed a brief submission to the President of the District Court entitled “Complaint of judges for delays in proceedings”. In this submission, the applicant invoked his right under Article 48 § 2 of the Convention to a hearing without unjustified delay and referred to “all judges of the District Court to whom his matters ha[d] been assigned and [such matters] ha[d] not been handled within a reasonable time”. No file numbers or other identifiers were mentioned. 13.  On 26 March 2003 the applicant filed another brief submission with similar content with the President of the Regional Court in which he referred to “the judges of the Regional Court and the President of the District Court”. 14.  On 17 July 2004 the applicant filed again a similar submission with the District Court entitled “Repeated complaint of unjustified delays in proceedings”, referring to his complaint of March 2003, presumably that mentioned in paragraph 12 above. 15.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended – Ústava Slovenskej republiky) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) contesting the length of the proceedings in his action in so far as they had taken place before the Regional Court. 16.  On 16 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed that the applicant had only contested the part of the proceedings before the Regional Court and found that the length of that part of the proceedings had not been excessive. In reaching that conclusion the Constitutional Court took into account that the length of those proceedings had partly been influenced by the applicant’s persisting health problems. 17.  On 3 January 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of the length of the proceedings in his action again, this time directing the complaint against both the District Court and the Regional Court and seeking the equivalent of some 4,350 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction. 18.  On 3 April 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that, prior to its introduction, the applicant had failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of remedies pursuant to section 53(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (Law no. 38/1993 Coll., as amended – Zákon o organizácii Ústavného súdu Slovenskej republiky, o konaní pred ním a o postavení jeho sudcov) by asserting his rights by way of a complaint to the president of the given court under the Courts Act (Law no. 757/2004 Coll., as amended – Zákon o súdoch). In particular, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s complaints of 24 and 26 March 2003 and 17 July 2004 (see paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 above) could not be considered as having amounted to proper complaints under the Courts Act on account of their vagueness and general tenor, in combination with the extensive amount of litigation that the applicant was involved in before the courts in question. 19.  On 14 May 2007 the applicant turned to the Constitutional Court again. Relying inter alia on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he complained of the decisions to declare his action inadmissible (see paragraph 8 above). 20.  On 29 May 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, having found no constitutionally relevant unfairness or arbitrariness in the contested decisions.