5.  The first applicant, Mr J. Maxian, is both a Slovakian and Austrian national who was born in 1949. The second applicant, Mr I. Maxianová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1965. The applicants live in Vienna, Austria. 6.  On 27 May 1996 the applicants claimed payment of a sum of money from an individual who used their real property before the Dunajská Streda District Court. 7.  On 3 June 2003 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings (file no. 4 C 204/96). Proceedings file no.4 C 204/96 concerned a different claim of the applicants filed to the Dunajská Streda District Court on 19 November 1996. The final decision in those proceedings was given on 10 November 2008. 8.  On 9 December 2008 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. It asked the applicants to specify their claim submitted on 27 May 1996. 9.  In February 2009 the applicants extended their claim and asked for the case to be joined to a different set of proceedings. They made further submissions in March 2009. 10.  On 25 May 2009 the District Court joined the proceedings to those concerning a different claim of the applicants (proceedings file no. 4 C 108/2001). 11.  Between February and September 2009 and between October 2009 and August 2010 courts at two levels determined the applicants’ obligation to pay court fees, also in view of the modification of their claim. 12.  On 13 December 2010 the District Court decided to examine the applicants’ claims jointly with those submitted in another set of proceedings brought on 29 March 1996 (file no. 9 C 171/96). 13.  The proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim of 27 May 1996 are pending before the Dunajská Streda District Court. 14.  On 4 September 2007 the Constitutional Court found no breach of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the Dunajská Streda District Court proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. 15.   The judgment stated that the District Court had proceeded with the case until 12 March 1998 and that subsequently the District Court judge had waited for developments in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96. As from 3 June 2003 proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96 had been stayed. 16.  The Constitutional Court noted that the applicants had contributed to the duration of proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. In particular, they had challenged at a higher instance the District Court judge and a decision on procedural fine. 17.  The duration of the proceedings was partly due to the District Court’s failure to proceed in an appropriate manner in the period until March 1998. While it was true that the District Court had not proceeded with the case between 12 March 1998 and 3 June 2003, the Constitutional Court accepted that it had been justified by the need to follow the developments and wait for the outcome in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96. 18.  On 16 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96 which had been brought on 19 November 1996. 19.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants the equivalent of EUR 2,656 as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings. 20.  Subsequently the applicants introduced an application in respect of the above proceedings (application no. 50780/11). It is pending before the Court. 21.  On 24 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 9 C 171/96. 22.  Those proceedings concerned the applicants’ civil claim of 29 March 1996. They were formally stayed, on 26 May 2003, pending the outcome of proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96. The Constitutional Court noted that the District Court judge had expressed her intention to wait for the outcome of the last mentioned proceedings. However, a formal decision to stay proceedings file no. 9 C 171/96 had been taken on 26 May 2003, and there had been no progress in the proceedings between January 2000 and 26 May 2003. Such way of dealing with the case was inappropriate. 23.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants jointly the equivalent of EUR 1,990 as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings. 24.  On 24 February 2009 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 5 C 171/96. 25.  Those proceedings concerned the applicants’ civil claim lodged on 30 September 1996. They were stayed, on 9 September 2003, pending the outcome of proceedings no. 4 C 204/96. In its judgment the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the District Court had known that a prejudicial issue was the subject-matter of proceedings 4 C 204/96 in 1997, but it had formally stayed the proceedings only five years later, in 2003. The judgment further stated that the overall length of the proceedings under considerations was excessive. 26.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants 3,000 euros each as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings.