4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa. 5.  On 7 July 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava I District Court against a private company. He claimed the equivalent of approximately 3,300 euros (EUR) which the company owed him. 6.  On 28 April 1998 insolvency proceedings were brought against the company and the proceedings on the applicant's action were stayed ex lege pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings (see point B below). 7.  On 23 October 1996 the Bratislava Regional Court started insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. That decision was quashed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Regional Court started a new set of insolvency proceedings on 28 April 1998. 8.  The administrator in insolvency refused to acknowledge the applicant's claim originally introduced on 7 July 1994 (see point A above). The applicant, therefore, lodged a separate action, on 17 April 1997, with a view to having his title to the debtor company determined. In a judgment which became final on 9 July 2001 the Regional Court confirmed that the applicant was entitled to the sum claimed. He was, however, not entitled to default interest on the amount claimed by him. 9.  Meanwhile, on 23 September 1999 and 28 September 2000 the administrator in insolvency informed the Regional Court about her activities. 10.  A meeting of creditors was held on 24 October 2000. 11.  On 15 February and 11 October 2001 the administrator submitted a report on her activities in the proceedings. 12.  On 22 April and 16 December 2002 the court asked the administrator to submit a report on her activities in the insolvency proceedings. She was informed that her failure to comply with the court's order would lead to the imposition of a fine. 13.  The administrator submitted her report on 31 January and 2 October 2003 and 24 February 2004. 14.  On 17 November 2004 the court asked the administrator to submit her final report and her claims for fees and expenses. 15.  The administrator complied with the order on 27 January 2005. 16.  The court repeatedly asked the administrator to modify the final report. She submitted the report on 21 September 2005. 17.  On 23 November 2005 the final report was accepted by the court. 18.  Meanwhile, several other creditors lodged separate actions with the Regional Court in respect of their claims to the debtor company's property. In 2006 three of those sets of proceedings, initiated in 2001, were pending. 19.  The insolvency proceedings are still pending. 20.  On 1 October 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the proceedings on his action of 7 July 1994 and the insolvency proceedings. The decision stated that the Bratislava I District Court was prevented from dealing with the case as the proceedings before it had been stayed ex lege pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. At that time the District Court could not, therefore, be held liable for any violation of the applicant's rights. The Constitutional Court could not examine the alleged delays in the District Court's proceedings before they had been stayed, as the relevant part of the application had been submitted after the expiry of the statutory two-month time-limit. The Constitutional Court found no particular delays in the insolvency proceedings pending before the Regional Court. 21.  As regards the alleged violation of the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Constitutional Court held that their protection fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Furthermore, the insolvency proceedings were still pending.