4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. 5.  The applicant was employed by the District National Committee (Okresný národný výbor) in Bardejov. In 1988 he was dismissed for breach of discipline. Subsequently courts at two levels of jurisdiction declared the dismissal unlawful. Their decisions became final on 2 August 1991. In 1990, while the above proceedings were pending, the national committees ceased to exist ex lege and their liquidation was formally completed on 31 July 1991. The national committees were replaced by district offices (okresné úrady) which were not, strictly speaking, the legal successors to the former. 6.  On 2 September 1991 the Bardejov District Office terminated the applicant’s contract of employment on the ground that the district national committee which had formerly employed him had ceased to exist. The applicant challenged this decision. He argued, in particular, that the government regulations on the liquidation of the former national committees were unlawful, that he had become an employee of the Bardejov District Office after his dismissal in 1988 was declared unlawful on 2 August 1991, and that the District Office had paid his salary until the end of 1991. He claimed compensation for damage caused by the termination of his contract of employment. 7.  On 6 March 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing the action. 1.2.1  Execution proceedings of 1998 (Bardejov District Court files no. E 182/98 and no. 3 Er 210/06, Prešov District Court file no. 572/99)
a) Applications of 25 May 1998 and 12 January 2006 8.  On 25 May 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Bardejov District Court claiming enforcement of the District Court’s judgment of 16 January 1991 by which his dismissal of 1988 had been declared unlawful and the payment of his costs had been ordered to the defendant. The application was registered under file no. 182/98. 9.  On 22 April 1999 the District Court invited the applicant to specify his claim. The applicant replied on 7 May 1999. 10.  On 13 December 2005 the District Court admitted that the file had been misplaced and ordered its reconstruction. 11.  On 12 January 2006 the applicant filed an application for the District Court’s judgment of 16 January 1991 to be enforced by an executions officer in accordance with new legislation enacted with effect from 1 September 2005. That application was registered under file no. 3 Er 210/06. 12.  On 20 March 2006 the District Court transmitted the file to the executions officer. In doing so it concluded its proceedings under file no. 182/98 as under the new legislation the enforcement of judicial decisions was entrusted exclusively to executions officers. 13.  On 19 July 2006 the District Court dismissed both parties’ objections to the execution. 14.  The executions officer enforced the compensation for costs of the proceedings which had been awarded to the applicant in the judgment in issue. On 19 October 2006 the executions officer informed the applicant that the enforcement was thereby concluded. The applicant was invited to indicate to which bank account the sum in issue should be transferred. 15.  In November 2006 the applicant objected that the execution had not been completed. He expressed the view that under the judgment in issue the defendant should be obliged to offer him a job. 16.  On 22 November 2006 the executions officer transferred the sum enforced (the equivalent of approximately EUR 20), in accordance with the applicant’s request, to the bank account of the Orthodox Church Parish in Bardejov. 17.  On 20 December 2006 the District Court informed the executions officer that no objections to the execution could be examined once the execution was completed. The executions officer was asked to return to the court the authorisation to carry out the enforcement. He complied with the request on 21 December 2006.
b) Application of 10 June 1998 18.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant submitted to the Bardejov District Court another application for enforcement of the same judgment of 16 January 1991. Until March 1999, the court did not consider the applicant’s application as a request for enforcement and attached it to the original case file. After having reconsidered the position, the court registered it as an application for enforcement under file no. E 83/99. 19.  On 22 April 1999 the Bardejov District Court transferred the file to the Prešov District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. The case was registered under file no. E 572/99. 20.  On 13 December 2005 the applicant was advised that he should submit his enforcement claim to an executions office in accordance with new legislation enacted with effect from 1 September 2005. 21.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant informed the Prešov District Court that an executions officer had refused to deal with this request for the judgment in issue to be enforced. 22.  On 27 March 2006 the Prešov District Court advised the applicant to seek redress with the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers. The applicant was informed that the amended law in force from 1 September 2005 required in similar cases an application for enforcement to be submitted to an executions officer within six months and the court concerned to be informed accordingly. 23.  On 17 September 2007 the Prešov District Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not complied with the above statutory requirement. 24.  On 4 December 2005 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings under file no. E 182/98 to the Constitutional Court. 25.  On 13 July 2006 the Constitutional Court (Second Chamber) held that the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant’s right to have the case decided without undue delay in that it had remained entirely inactive for more than seven years. 26.  The Constitutional Court decided not to award any just satisfaction to the applicant. It held that the applicant sought the enforcement of a judicial decision of a declaratory nature which did not, as such, impose any enforceable obligation on the defendant. In that respect his request had been devoid of any prospect of success from the very beginning. 27.  As the applicant had failed to specify his claim for costs and expenses and since the lawyer whom the applicant had appointed to represent him had made no submission to the Constitutional Court, the latter decided not to make any award under that head.
b) Complaint of 5 December 2005 28.  On 5 December 2005 the applicant complained about the length of the Prešov District Court proceedings under file no. E 572/99. 29.  On 28 June 2006 the Constitutional Court (First Chamber) held that the Prešov District Court had not violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The decision stated that the applicant had claimed the enforcement of a decision declaring his dismissal from a job unlawful. That decision was of a purely declaratory nature and it imposed no specific obligation on the defendant. In those circumstances the way in which the District Court had dealt with the request for enforcement could not affect the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
c) Complaint of 24 October 2006 30.  On 24 October 2006 the applicant complained that the Bardejov District Court had violated his right to a fair hearing in that in proceedings under file no. 3 Er 210/06 it had failed to ensure respect for his right to work in accordance with the judgment of 16 January 1991. 31.  On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. As in the above decisions, it noted that under the judgment of 16 January 1991 the applicant had no enforceable right to obtain employment. In that connection the applicant should have initiated separate proceedings with a view to obliging the defendant to offer him a job. 1.3.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 2 February 1996 (Bardejov District Court file no. 11C 129/96) 32.  On 2 February 1996 the applicant brought proceedings against the State, represented by the Bardejov District Office, before the Bardejov District Court. He claimed that (i) the court should declare that the decision of the Bardejov District Office of 2 September 1991 to put an end to his contract of employment formally had been arbitrary and (ii) that the authorities had discriminated against him in that respect. 33.  On 27 July 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings holding that it was the subject matter of two other sets of proceedings which were still pending. The applicant appealed. 34.  On 20 December 2002 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the first claim and quashed the decision in respect of the applicant’s second claim concerning the alleged discrimination. The decision of the court of appeal became final on 21 February 2003. 35.  On 28 February 2003 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 20 December 2002, alleging that it was erroneous. 36.  On 28 April 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law in respect of the Regional Court’s decision to uphold the first-instance decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the first claim. The Supreme Court quashed the other part of the appeal decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The court of cassation held that the court of appeal should have either determined the issue or remitted the relevant part of the case at first instance or, if appropriate, transferred it to a different authority. 37.  On 28 November 2005 the Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court’s decision of 27 July 2001 concerning the alleged discrimination against the applicant and remitted the case to the District Court. 38.  The parties submitted no information about further developments in the case. 39.  On 10 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that in the proceedings leading to the decision of 20 December 2002 the Bardejov District Court and the Prešov Regional Court had violated his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. He also alleged a violation of his right to work. 40.  On 4 June 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint. It based its decision on its established practice of examining length-of-proceedings complaints only where the proceedings complained of were still pending before the authority liable for the alleged violation when the complaint to the Constitutional Court was filed. That requirement had not been met, as the proceedings complained of had ended with the Regional Court’s decision, which had become final on 21 February 2003. 41.  On 5 December 1997 execution proceedings were instituted for enforcement of the Bardejov District Court’s judgment of 15 March 1995, by which the applicant had been ordered to pay a debt to the Bardejov District Labour Office. 42.  On 19 December 1997 the Bardejov District Court appointed an executions officer to enforce the judgment. In a letter of 2 January 1998, the executions officer informed the applicant about the execution proceedings. 43.  On 23 January 1998 the applicant filed objections to the execution. 44.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant paid the sum owed as well as the costs of the execution. 45.  On 9 February 1998 the executions officer informed the District Court thereof and returned the authority to carry out the execution. 46.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant complained about undue delays in the above execution proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He stated that the Bardejov District Court had not yet decided on his objections to the execution submitted on 23 January 1998. 47.  On 20 October 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint as having been lodged out of time. With reference to the relevant law, it held that the execution proceedings had ended with final effect on 9 February 1998, when the District Court had been notified of the applicant’s compliance with his obligation. After that date, the District Court had not been authorised to take any further action in those proceedings. The applicant had thus failed to lodge his constitutional complaint within the statutory two-month time-limit, which had started running on 9 February 1998. 3.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action for protection of his personal integrity of 1996 (Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 309/96) 48.  Since 1968 the applicant has lived in a block of flats owned by a co-operative. In 1996 the co-operative published a list of tenants who owed rent. The applicant’s name was included in the list. 49.  On 27 March 1996 the applicant sued the co-operative for defamation before the Bardejov District Court. He maintained that the publication of his name in the list of debtors had infringed his personal rights. 50.  On 3 April 1996 the court invited the applicant to pay a court fee. On 29 April 1996 the defendant submitted comments on the action. 51.  On 6 May 1996 the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the fee. The applicant appealed and requested to be exempted from this obligation. 52.  On 10 October 1996 the District Court granted the applicant’s request and quashed the decision to discontinue the proceedings. 53.  The District Court held three hearings in October and November 1996. 54.  On 2 December 1996 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of different proceedings in which the co-operative sued the applicant for arrears of rent. The applicant appealed. The court of appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 26 March 1997. 55.  Between April 1997 and February 2000 the District Court made eighteen requests for information about the state of the above proceedings against the applicant. On 14 April 1999 the District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the co-operative’s claim for arrears of rent. This decision became final on 17 March 2000. 56.  In the meantime, on 20 February 2000, the applicant informed the District Court that he was ill and that he could not attend any hearings. 57.  On 7 February 2003 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings in the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed, alleging that this decision was superfluous. The Regional Court rejected the appeal on 27 June 2003. 58.  The District Court summoned the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 20 October 2003. The applicant informed the court that he did not wish to attend. 59.  On 27 October 2003 the case was assigned to a different judge, as the judge originally involved felt biased due to the applicant’s verbal attacks. 60.  On 14 April 2004 the District Court dismissed the action. The court held that there was no indication that the publication of the applicant’s name in the list of debtors was capable of infringing his right to personal integrity. Moreover, it had been proven that the information about the applicant’s debt was correct. The applicant appealed. 61.  On 16 March 2005 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. The decision on the applicant’s claim became final on 10 November 2005. 62.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. 63.  On 19 January 2006 the applicant’s file was sent to the Constitutional Court at the latter’s request. 64.  On 26 June 2007 the District Court appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings regarding his appeal on points of law. 65.  No information is available about further developments in the case. 66.  On 26 November 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional court about undue delays in the above proceedings before the Bardejov District Court. 67.  On 7 May 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant’s right to have the case decided without undue delay. 68.  The decision stated that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 17 March 2000 until 26 November 2002 (the date of lodging the complaint to the Constitutional Court), that is, a total of two years and eight months. The applicant was partly responsible for that period in that, after he had informed the District Court of his inability to attend hearings on account of his illness on 20 February 2000, he had failed to inform the court when the period of that illness had come to an end. 69.  The Constitutional Court therefore decided not to award any just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
b) Complaint of 19 December 2005 70.  On 19 December 2005 complained about the excessive length of the above proceedings before the District Court and the Regional Court. He also complained that the change in judges had been contrary to his right to a hearing by a tribunal established by law and that the courts’ decisions were arbitrary. Finally, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the courts had failed to protect his personal rights. 71.  On 17 May 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It found no unjustified delays in the proceedings during the period subsequent to its above judgment on 7 May 2003. As regards the complaint about the change of judges, the applicant should have first sought redress by means of an appeal on points of law. Since the applicant had filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment of 16 March 2005, the remaining complaints to the Constitutional Court were premature. 72.  On 25 May 2004 the applicant filed a criminal complaint in respect of a fraud. He alleged that the case file in the proceedings concerning his above defamation action of 1996 contained documents with a forged signature. 73.  On 3 July 2004 the District Directorate of the Police Corps in Bardejov found no ground for bringing criminal proceedings. 74.  On 6 August 2004 a prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Bardejov dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the above decision. 75.  On 13 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention in respect of the above decisions of the District Directorate of the Police Corps and of the prosecutor. 76.  On 8 December 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It held that the applicant should have first sought redress before a public prosecutor at a higher level in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Prosecution Act 2001. 77.  On 28 March 2006 the applicant complained before the Constitutional Court that his rights under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated in that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Prešov had failed to take appropriate action in his case. 78.  As the complaint did not comply with the formal requirements, on 2 May 2006 the Constitutional Court asked the advocate appointed by the applicant to submit further information. In the absence of any reply from the advocate, on 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court, rejected the complaint as falling short of the statutory requirements. 79.  On 19 July 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected a third complaint by the applicant. It concerned the refusal, by the Police Directorate in Bardejov and the Bardejov District Prosecutor’s Office, to prosecute persons responsible for the inclusion of a fraudulent document in the file concerning the above action for defamation. The decision stated that the prosecuting authorities had duly considered the applicant’s criminal complaint and had given sufficient reasons for their conclusion. The fact that they did not accept the applicant’s argument that an offence had been committed did not amount to a violation of his right to a fair hearing.