4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Košice. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Košice – okolie District Court. She sought the dissolution of a joint ownership of real property. 7.  On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice – okolie District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The case was not complex. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that she had challenged judges and an expert. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling 53 months. 8.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs. 9.  On 29 September 2004 the District Court issued an interim measure.
On 15 October 2004 the applicant appealed. 10.  On 22 November 2004 the District Court discontinued the appeal proceedings concerning the interim measure as the applicant had not paid the court fees. 11.  On 29 July 2005 the District Court dissolved the joint ownership of the property in issue. On 14 October 2005 the applicant appealed. On 2 December 2005 the District Court delivered a decision correcting a clerical error in its judgment. 12.  On 26 September 2005 the applicant appointed a new legal representative. 13.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant filed a submission with the District Court seeking an interim measure. On 17 July 2006 the applicant withdrew her submission. 14.  On 28 November 2006 the District Court transferred the file to the Court of Appeal. 15.  On 4 April 2007 the Court of Appeal returned the file to the District Court for a decision on the applicant’s request for an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees. 16.  On 15 April 2007 the applicant challenged the judge. 17.  On 20 September 2007 the District Court transferred the file to the Court of Appeal. 18.  On 26 May 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment of 29 July 2005.