4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bratislava. 5.  On 17 August 1998 she lodged an action to determine the validity of the termination of employment[1]. The defendant introduced a counterclaim. 6.  The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew their claims on 22 May 2006. 7.  As a result, the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings on 25 May 2006. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 July 2006 and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final on 16 August 2006. 8.  On 31 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings. 9.  On 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the protection of one's right to a hearing without unjustified delay by the Constitutional Court was intended to eliminate the state of legal uncertainty of a party to proceedings. Legal uncertainty could be eliminated either by a final judicial decision or by other means stipulated by the law. The latter also included a procedural decision of a court, based on the plaintiff's wish not to pursue the proceedings as regards the entire claim or where, as in the present case, both parties withdrew their claims. It had been the Constitutional Court's practice to reject complaints filed when the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay was not being violated, even if the relevant decisions had not yet become final. 10.  It finally noted that the applicant had lodged her complaint after the District Court had adopted the decision to discontinue the proceedings following the withdrawal of the parties' claims. As a result, the District Court was no longer dealing with the merits of the case and the complaint of the length of the proceedings was thus manifestly ill-founded.