4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Košice. 5.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, a private company, in the Košice District Court (Okresný súd). He sought a judicial order for payment of compensation in respect of outstanding wages, leave pay, severance pay and a food allowance. The action was filed under the number 12C 1730/99. 6.  On 4 January 2000 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees. On the same day, it requested the defendant to submit observations in reply. The defendant company replied on 10 February 2000 submitting, inter alia, that the reason why it had not paid the amounts claimed was lack of means. 7.  On 24 February 2000 the District Court requested the applicant to comment on the defendant's observations in reply which the applicant did on 20 March 2000. 8.  In letters of 20 March and 25 July 2000 and 29 January 2001 the applicant demanded that, in view of the defendant's admission, the District Court determine the matter promptly. 9.  On 14 September 2000 the District Court held a hearing at which the defendant expressly acknowledged the existence and amount of its debt. However, it remained to be clarified whether the amount was gross or net. The hearing was adjourned, the defendant being invited to submit copies of the applicant's salary records. The defendant submitted them on 2 October 2000. 10.  On 3 April and 16 October 2001 the District Court held further hearings. At the former hearing the applicant withdrew a part of the claim on the ground that the defendant had paid a part of his outstanding wages. Following the latter hearing, on the same day, the District Court determined the action. It first of all discontinued the proceedings in respect of the part of the claim that had been withdrawn. It then granted the remaining part of the claim for outstanding wages. The District Court finally ruled that the claim for leave pay, severance pay and a food allowance would be determined in a separate set of proceedings. 11.  The statutory thirty-day time-limit for finalising the written version of the judgment of 16 October 2001 was extended by decision of the president of the District Court and it was finally sent to the parties on 13 December 2001. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final and binding on 31 January 2002. 12.  The applicant subsequently commissioned a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor) to enforce the order for payment of the outstanding wages. On 13 June 2002 the officer notified the defendant officially that the enforcement proceedings had commenced. 13.  On 8 February 2002 the case file concerning the separate set of proceedings opened pursuant to the judgment of 16 October 2001 was assigned to a new judge and on 3 October 2002 it was registered under a new file number 19C 1131/02. 14.  Following another request by the applicant that the case be determined swiftly, the District Court scheduled hearings for 12 December 2002 and 18 March and 29 April 2003. They were adjourned owing to the absence of the defendant's representative, who submitted an apology on 4 March 2003. 15.  On 13 January 2004 the District Court held another hearing at which the defendant acknowledged the outstanding claims. Following the hearing, on the same day, the District Court granted the remainder of the action. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and binding on 29 March 2004. The applicant subsequently requested its judicial enforcement. 16.  In a letter of 2 August 2004 the enforcement officer informed the applicant that the defendant company could not be located at its registered address and that no movable or immovable assets belonging to it had been traced. He proposed that the enforcement be discontinued. 17.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant lodged a petition (podnet) under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He contended that his action of 1999 had not been determined “without unjustified delay” as guaranteed by Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution. 18.  On 13 March 2002 the Constitutional Court discontinued the proceedings. It was noted that the proceedings under file number 12C 1730/99 at which the petition was aimed had already been concluded by the judgment of 16 October 2001. The remainder of the action of 1999 was being determined in the other set of proceedings under file number 19C 1131/02. In these circumstances, the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had to be considered as fulfilled. Relying on its established practice, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant therefore was no longer justified in having a ruling on his petition. 19.  On 2 October 2002 the applicant filed a fresh complaint (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court arguing that his action of 1999, as a whole, had not been determined without unjustified delay. He sought an order for an acceleration of the proceedings and 50,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) by way of just satisfaction. 20.  In a decision of 22 January 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible in so far as it concerned the proceedings under file number 12C 1730/99, observing that those proceedings had already ended in 2001. It further declared the complaint admissible in so far as it concerned the proceedings under file number 19C 1131/02. 21.  In a judgment (nález) of 21 May 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings under file number 19C 1131/02. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the matter speedily and awarded the applicant SKK 15,000[2] in just satisfaction. The Constitutional Court formally reviewed only the part of the proceedings which had commenced in 2002 further to the judgment of October 2001. It “took notice” of the fact that the action as such had been lodged in 1999. No delays could be imputed to the applicant and the District Court had been completely inactive between 8 January and 3 October 2002. The amount of the just satisfaction was determined on an equitable basis with reference to Article 41 of the Convention.