4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Trnava. 5.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Trnava District Court. 6.  Following the applicant's failure to eliminate shortcomings in his action, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 16 January 2001. 7.  On 28 August 2001 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the above decision as the District Court had failed to instruct the applicant in a clear manner as to how to eliminate the shortcomings in his action. On 27 November 2001 the case was remitted to the District Court. 8.  On 29 November 2002, 20 January 2003 and 1 July 2004 the applicant addressed a request for acceleration of the proceedings and two complaints about undue delays to the President of the District Court. 9.  On 24 August 2005 the District Court rejected the applicant's action due to his failure to eliminate shortcomings in his action although he had been instructed how to do so. 10.  On 14 July 2006 the Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision. The decision became final on 22 August 2006. 11.  On 16 March 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected as being manifestly ill-founded the applicant's complaint about a violation by the District Court of his right to a hearing without unjustified delay. 12.  The Constitutional Court observed that a single period of inactivity (12 months) of the District Court had not led to a breach of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it held that the remedy used by the applicant, namely the complaint about undue delays to the President of the District Court, had had an accelerating effect.