4.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava. 5.  On 23 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages against the Nitra Regional Police Authority in respect of events surrounding his deprivation of liberty. 6.  On 12 December 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision as being erroneous on 31 May 2004. 7.  On 26 October 2004 the case was assigned to a different judge of the Nitra District Court. On 5 April 2005 that court dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. On 31 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed that decision as being incorrect. 8.  On 6 December 2005 the case was assigned to a different District Court judge as the judge dealing with the case had requested her exclusion. In the first half of 2006 the District Court obtained information about the applicant’s financial situation. In September 2006 it received factual information from the Ministry of the Interior. 9.  On 2 May 2007 the District Court refused to appoint a lawyer to represent the applicant. On 28 August 2007 the Regional Court quashed that decision holding that the applicant had been denied his right of access to a court. The file was returned to the District Court on 6 December 2007. It appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant on 7 December 2007. 10.  Between May and July 2008 the District Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to complete the action. The modified action was submitted on 8 August 2008. 11.  On 20 November 2008 the file was transmitted to the Piešťany District Court with a request to hear the applicant in prison. The file was returned to the Nitra District Court on 5 August 2009 with the explanation that the applicant insisted on being heard by the court dealing with his claim. 12.  In the meantime, on 6 March 2009, the Nitra District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the appointment of a different lawyer to represent him. The Regional Court upheld that decision on 30 April 2009. 13.  As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers. The applicant explained that he disagreed to a prison officer being present during the conversation. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010, the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010. 14.  On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers in writing and that he did not wish to be represented by them. 15.  On 11 May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed. 16.  The civil proceedings are pending. 17.  On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded. 18.  On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint about the duration of the proceedings before the District Court. 19.  On 7 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the third complaint of the applicant about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. It examined the period subsequent to its above decision of 13 November 2009 and held that its duration was principally due to the applicant’s conduct. 20.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant lodged an action for damages against the prison administration alleging that prison guards had ill-treated him. 21.  On 21 April 2004 the District Court declared it inadmissible as being unclear. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision on 12 October 2004 as being erroneous. 22.  On 10 January 2005 the applicant asked for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee. On 1 April 2005 he informed the District Court, in reply to the request for a form concerning his financial situation, that he had filed his case with the European Court. He did not trust the State organs and did not intend to proceed with the case. The District Court enquired about the applicant’s financial situation and received replies from various State organs. On 21 July 2005 it dismissed the request for waiver of court fees. The decision was quashed by the Regional Court on 28 October 2005 on the ground that the District Court had failed to establish all relevant facts and had failed to give relevant reasons for its conclusion. In January 2006 the District Court attempted to have the Regional Court’s decision served, but it was informed that the applicant had been moved to a different prison. 23.  In April 2007 the District Court asked the applicant whether he wished to pursue his claim in view of his above statement of 1 April 2005. On 25 May 2007 and 22 June 2007 the applicant replied that he could not respond without legal assistance. On the latter date he asked the court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer. On 23 October 2007 the District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings. 24.  On 3 January 2008 the lawyer confirmed that the applicant wished to pursue his case and clarified that the action had been lodged against the Ministry of Justice. 25.  In January 2008 the applicant complained to the District Court about the lawyer’s conduct, claiming that the lawyer had acted without the applicant’s consent and that he had not followed the applicant’s instructions. On 8 August 2008 the lawyer modified the applicant’s claim. 26.  On 29 September 2008 the applicant asked for a different lawyer to be appointed to represent him. The District Court dismissed that request on 6 March 2009. On 30 April 2009 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision. 27.  As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the latter informed the District Court that the applicant had refused to speak to its lawyers during their visit in prison. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010 the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010. 28.  On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the court that the applicant had objected to being represented by it. 29.  In May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed. 30.  The civil proceedings are pending. 31.  On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the length of the District Court’s proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed that the applicant had not sufficiently cooperated with the District Court and that the latter had actively dealt with the applicant’s numerous submissions and procedural requests. The court had also sent several requests to a number of State organs in order to establish the applicant’s financial situation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it concluded that there had been no unreasonable delays attributable to the District Court. 32.  On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s second complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded. 33.  On 7 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the third complaint of the applicant about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. It examined the period subsequent to its above decision of 13 November 2009 and held that its duration was principally due to the applicant’s conduct. 34.  On 17 December 2002 a telephone company sued the applicant for a sum of money. The Nitra District Court issued a payment order which was quashed following the applicant’s objection. In a judgment of 14 October 2003 District Court ordered the applicant to pay a sum to the plaintiff. 35.  On 27 February 2004 the Nitra Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment. 36.  Subsequently the District Court appointed a lawyer to the applicant. It scheduled two hearings in October 2004. In January 2005 the applicant was heard in prison. On 3 May 2005 the District Court delivered its second judgment ordering the applicant to pay a sum to the plaintiff. 37.  On 10 November 2006 the Regional Court confirmed the first‑instance judgment in part. It ordered the District Court to determine the outstanding part of the claim. The court of appeal dealt with the case for sixteen months, the file was returned to the District Court on 26 January 2007. 38.  Between 27 March 2007 and 3 July 2008 the District Court scheduled six hearings, arranged for the applicant to be heard in prison and obtained additional evidence and information. On the latter date it determined the outstanding sum due by the applicant. 39.  On 18 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court which had by then lasted three and a half years. 40.  On 9 October 2008 the Nitra Regional Court modified the District Court’s judgment of 3 July 2008. It became final on 9 February 2009. The Regional Court further quashed the decision on the costs and returned that aspect of the case at first instance. The District Court re-determined the costs and lawyer’s fees on 24 April 2009. On 30 September 2009 the Regional Court quashed that decision. The District Court gave the final decision on the issue on 22 April 2010.