4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Čadca. 5.  The applicant was married to Mr Š with whom she lived in a common household. There were three children of the marriage: L, B and A. The children were born in 1976, 1977 and 1983 respectively. 6.  In 1993 Š. opened a business. In connection with that initiative, on the applicant's request, the Čadca District Court (Okresný súd) dissolved their matrimonial property regime under Article 148 § 2 of the Civil Code. From that year on the applicant and Š never lived together. 7.  In 1994 the District Court ordered that Š contribute towards the children's maintenance by making monthly payments. At the same time, it dismissed as premature the parents' respective claims for custody and care of the children. 8.  In 1995 the applicant set up a commercial limited liability company (company B) of which she is the sole owner and statutory representative. 9.  In 1996 the applicant and Š set up a commercial limited liability company (company E). They are the sole owners and Š is the statutory representative. 10.  In 1999, acting in the name and on behalf of company E, Mr Š transferred the ownership of immovable property from the company to L. 11.  On 3 February 1998 the applicant filed a motion pursuant to Article 50 § 1 of the Family Code with the District Court for an order entrusting her with the care of A prior to the pronouncement of the divorce. She also sought an increase of the amount of Š's monthly contributions towards A's maintenance on the ground that since the judgments of 1994 the situation had changed. 12.  On 19 May 1998 the District Court entrusted A to the care of the applicant and increased the amount of the maintenance contributions. 13.  On 31 August 1998, on the applicant's appeal, the Žilina Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the ruling concerning maintenance payments and remitted this matter to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re-examination. 14.  On 2 March 2000 the District Court again determined the amount of the monthly contributions which Š had to make towards the maintenance of A. 15.  On 31 October 2000, on appeals by both parents, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 March 2000 as the facts of the case had still not been adequately established. The case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination. The latter held hearings on 23 June and 7 September 2004. 16.  On 26 October 2005 the Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the defendant's challenge against the District Court judge for bias. 17.  The District Court held another hearing on 1 February 2006. It was adjourned and the proceedings are still pending. 18.  On 14 May 1998 Š lodged a petition for divorce and requested a judicial determination of the arrangements to be made in respect of A. 19.  On 28 July 1998 the District Court pronounced the dissolution of the marriage, entrusted A to the care of the applicant and ordered Š to pay, on a monthly basis, an amount of money to the applicant as a contribution towards the maintenance of A. The ruling concerning the divorce and care of A became final and binding on 31 August 1998. The applicant appealed against the maintenance order and sought a higher amount. 20.  On 30 July 1999 the Regional Court quashed the maintenance order and remitted this issue to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re-examination. 21.  On 2 May 2000 the District Court again determined the amount of the monthly contributions which Š had to pay in respect of A's maintenance. 22.  On 30 October 2000 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 May 2000 as the facts of the case had still not been adequately established. The case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination. 23.  On 29 October 2002 the District Court for the third time determined the amount which Š. had to pay every month in respect of the maintenance of A. On 8 July 2004 the District Court corrected a clerical error in the operative part of the judgment. 24.  In the meantime, on 16 June 2004 the applicant lodged an “appeal” against the judgment of 29 October 2002. She claimed that a copy of that judgment had been made available to her no earlier than 2 June 2004. 25.  On 1 December 2004 the Regional Court declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible. It observed that a copy of the judgment of 29 October 2002 had been served on her legal representative on 11 February 2003 and that, accordingly, the 15 days' period for filing an appeal had expired on 26 February 2003. The applicant's appeal of 16 June 2004 was therefore belated. 26.  On 3 September 1998 and 8 March 2001, respectively, A lodged two petitions against Š. seeking the judicial enforcement of her claim to two sums of money due to her under the judgment of 1994 (see above under heading “A”). 27.  On 10 September 1998 and 29 March 2001, respectively, the District Court issued two enforcements warrants for the seizure of money from the defendant's bank account. Both enforcements appear to be still pending. 28.  On 6 July 1998 the applicant filed a petition for dissolution of her co-ownership regime with Š and for distribution of the property. In December 1999 the applicant provided further and better particulars of her claim. The proceedings appear to be still pending. 29.  On 10 February 2000 the applicant brought an action in the District Court challenging the transfer in 1999 of the immovable property from company E to L. An interim injunction was issued, and later quashed on appeal, prohibiting L from disposing of the property. On 29 October 2002 the District Court dismissed the action. 30.  On 11 February 2000 company B lodged an action against Š seeking an order for payment of an amount of money owed under a contract of sale of 1997. The action was granted by way of a payment order (platobný rozkaz), which was then quashed on the defendant's protest (odpor). The proceedings appear to be still pending. 31.  The applicant filed numerous criminal complaints against Š alleging that he was in default with payments of maintenance in respect of A and B. Š was found guilty of neglecting his alimentary duty within the meaning of Article 213 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced by a penal order (trestný rozkaz) of the District Court of 29 July 2002 to 4 months' imprisonment suspended for 1 year. On 30 October 2002 another charge of neglecting his alimentary duty in respect of A was brought against him. 32.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Š in connection with the transfer of the immovable property from company E. to L. The matter was investigated by the Čadca District Office of Investigation which concluded, on 17 November 2000, that there was no criminal case to answer. This decision was upheld on appeal on 5 January 2001 by the Čadca District Prosecutor. 33.  The applicant filed several criminal complaints against Š and L accusing them of having broken into her house and having taken and damaged her property and of having behaved abusively towards her. On 26 October and 2 November 1999 the Čadca District Police decided not to act on these complaints as there was no criminal case to answer. The allegations of abusive behaviour were referred for examination to the minor offences authority. The applicant's repeated appeals were dismissed as unfounded by the District Prosecutor on 22 and 23 November and 21 December 1999 and by the Žilina Regional Prosecutor on 23 August 2000. The matter was not of a criminal nature and concerned the division and distribution of the property in the co-ownership of the applicant and Š, a matter which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. 34.  In January 2003 the applicant wrote to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). In substance she complained of the length of the above civil and criminal proceedings and/or of the inactivity of the official authorities. 35.  On 1 April 2003, through the intermediary of a lawyer, the applicant submitted a formal constitutional complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution in which she complained of delays in the proceedings concerning the increase of the maintenance contributions, the divorce proceedings and the two sets of enforcement proceedings. 36.  On 17 December 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible is so far as it concerned the proceedings on the increase of maintenance and the divorce proceedings. The complaint was inadmissible in so far as it related to the enforcement proceedings. The latter proceedings concerned the claims of A, who had reached the age of majority in the meantime. The applicant was not a party to these proceedings. She had no standing to complain about them in her own name. 37.  On 7 April 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution in the two sets of proceedings under review. The subject matter of these proceedings was interconnected, was factually complex and called for special diligence. The District Court had failed to handle them with the requisite expedition and their overall length, as such, was excessive. The Constitutional Court consequently ordered that the District Court proceed with the maintenance proceedings without delay and ordered that it pay the applicant 30,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for her non-pecuniary damage and reimburse her legal costs. The amount of just satisfaction was determined on an “equitable basis” and with reference to Article 41 of the Convention.