4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Brno.
a. Facts prior to 18 March 1992, the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to the Czech Republic 5.  On 3 February 1989 the applicant filed with the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) an action for the protection of his personality (žaloba na ochranu osobnosti) against his father-in-law alleging that he had interfered with his honour and reputation. He asked the court to prohibit the defendant from mentioning, in writing, verbally or in another way, that he was suffering from mental illness, disorder or deviation and that his behaviour showed symptoms of mental illnesses. 6.  A first hearing was scheduled for 28 April 1989 but was adjourned to 19 May 1989. Another hearing took place on 30 June 1989. According to the applicant, the court did not act on 28 April, and 9 and 30 June 1989. Three hearings scheduled for 14 July, 25 August and 22 September 1989 did not take place because the parties had not been convened in time or could not attend. Two further hearings were held on 11 October 1989 and 23 February 1990. According to the Government, the applicant's lawyer was duly convened to the hearings of 14 July and 22 September 1989. 7.  On 30 January 1990 a hearing was scheduled for 23 February 1990. On 12 March 1990 the applicant was invited to attend the court but did not do so. On 2 May 1990 he requested that the judges of the Municipal Court's chamber be excluded from the examination of his case. On 2 July 1990 the applicant, upon the Municipal Court's request of 22 June 1990, informed the court that he insisted on the exclusion of all three members of the chamber from the examination of his case. On 12 September 1990 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) excluded the president of the chamber. 8.  On 20 November 1990 the applicant requested to have his former wife cited as a defendant. He also amended his original action in which he sought an order against the defendants enjoining them to refrain from oral attacks on him and to pay him damages in the amount of CZK 50,000 (EUR 1,592). 9.  On 12 March 1991 a hearing of the applicant was to take place in connection with his objection to the judges of the chamber of the Municipal Court on grounds of bias. He did not appear. He attended the court on 28 March 1991 explaining that he was staying abroad and could only participate in the proceedings as from 29 April 1991. 10.  By letter of 19 April 1991, the president of the Regional Court acknowledged that the proceedings had suffered from delays. 11.  On 3 May 1991 the applicant orally informed the new president of the chamber at the Municipal Court that he still insisted on the exclusion of the other two members of the chamber from the examination of his case. 12.  According to the applicant, from 1991 to 1995, no hearing was held by the court. Moreover, since 1991, his action was dealt with by a single judge (samosoudce).
b. Facts after 18 March 1992 13.  Between 15 January and 26 August 1992 the case file was sent to the Brno Regional Prosecutor Office (krajské státní zastupitelství) in connection with the applicant's criminal complaint against the defendants. 14.  On 12 October 1992 the applicant informed it that he would be available to attend the court on 6 November 1992. 15.  On 11 December 1992 the Municipal Court granted the applicant's request of 20 November 1990 to have his former wife cited as a defendant. On the same day, the court adopted an interim measure, which had been requested by the applicant on 12 August 1991, ordering the defendants to refrain from any written or oral attacks on him and from any other measures which could humiliate him. 16.  On 6 and 15 January 1993 respectively, the defendants appealed against the interim measure with the result that, on 3 February 1993, the case file had to be sent to the Regional Court. 17.  By letter of 18 October 1993, the president of the Regional Court, upon the applicant's complaint of 13 October 1993, acknowledged that there were delays in the proceedings and assured him that the Municipal Court would resume the examination of his case in November 1993. 18.  On 7 June 1995 the applicant challenged a judge at the Regional Court for bias in connection with the unreasonable delays in the proceedings. He requested that the case be transferred to another regional court. 19.  On 11 July 1995 the Regional Court quashed the interim measure and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. The decision was adopted by the judge whose exclusion had been requested on 7 June 1995. 20.  On 3 September 1995 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to complete his request for an interim measure. He did so on 30 October 1995. 21.  The applicant says that, on 11 December 1995, the president of the Regional Court found substantiated his claim of alleged illegal actions of the Regional Court carried out by an excluded judge. 22.  On 8 January 1996 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to complete the merits of his action for the protection of his personality. He did so on 14 February 1996, at the same time extending his claim for damages to CZK 30,000 (EUR 955). 23.  On 21 May 1996 the Municipal Court held a hearing at which the applicant withdrew his action together with his request of 12 August 1991 for an interim measure. However, he maintained his petitions of 20 November 1990 and 14 February 1996 and requested that another interim measure be adopted. The court adjourned the hearing without fixing a new date. 24.  On 8 July 1996 the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed and that the evidence already adduced in the criminal proceedings instituted by the defendants for defamation be added to the case file. 25.  On 27 December 1996 the applicant challenged the single judge for bias alleging that she was responsible for delays in the proceedings. He requested that his case be transferred to another court. On 28 December 1996 he challenged the impartiality of the judge at the Regional Court as well as the Regional Court as a whole, and requested that his case be transferred to the Ostrava Regional Court. 26.  On 15 April 1997 the Brno Regional Court, passing over – the applicant says – his objection for bias, upheld the Municipal Court's decision of 10 October 1996 in so far as it stayed, following the applicant's withdrawal of his action on 21 May 1996, the proceedings concerning his original action and his request for an interim measure of 12 August 1991. It quashed the remainder of the Municipal Court's decision. On the same day, the Regional Court decided that the single judge dealing with the applicant's case was not excluded from the proceedings. 27.  On 11 November 1997 another hearing was held before the Municipal Court and was then adjourned. During this hearing, the applicant asked for leave to amend his claims of 20 November 1990 and 14 February 1996, increasing the claim for damages. No new hearing date was fixed. 28.  The applicant says that during the whole year of 1998 the court remained inactive. 29.  On 19 January 1998 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) complaining about the delays in the proceedings. On 3 February 1998 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) informed him that legal representation in such proceedings was obligatory. According to the applicant, he was legally represented, but his lawyer did not introduce a proper constitutional appeal in time, with the result that the Constitutional Court dismissed his original appeal on 24 March 1998 for formal shortcomings. 30.  On 20 March 1998 the Municipal Court granted the applicant leave to amend his claims in line with his petitions of 14 February 1996 and 11 November 1997 concerning the merits of his action for the protection of his personality and his increased claim for damages. 31.  According to the applicant, the court adjourned the hearing of 19 May 1998 because of the unexcused absence of the defendants' lawyer. No new hearing date was fixed. 32.  On 10 November 1998 the applicant introduced a second constitutional appeal, alleging that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. 33.  On 12 November 1998 the Municipal Court granted the applicant's subsequent request of 19 May 1998 to amend his action in its modified version. On 17 November 1998 the court scheduled a hearing for 15 December 1998. However, it was adjourned without a new date being fixed, as the case file needed to be sent to the Olomouc High Court (Vrchní soud) which was to deal with the applicant's objection to the judges at the Regional Court on grounds of bias. On the same day, the applicant filed a complaint alleging delay, challenging the single judge, the whole Municipal Court and Regional Court for bias, and requesting that his case be transferred to another court. 34.  On 26 November 1998 the case file was sent to the Constitutional Court which had dealt with the applicant's second constitutional appeal. 35.  The applicant says that no hearing was held during the whole year of 1999. 36.  On 1 March 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's second constitutional appeal for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicant had not complained since 11 December 1995 of delay in the proceedings to the president of the Regional Court. The case file was returned to the Municipal Court on 5 March 1999. 37.  On 5 May 1999 the Regional Court again decided not to exclude the single judge from the examination of the applicant's case. 38.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant filed a third constitutional appeal against this decision. 39.  The next day the Municipal Court held another hearing. It was adjourned to 2 September 1999 as the defendants could not be present. 40.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant lodged a fourth constitutional appeal, this time against the decision of the High Court of 31 March 1999 rejecting his request for the exclusion of the judges at the Regional Court from the proceedings. 41.  At the hearing held on 2 September 1999, the applicant again challenged the single judge for bias. The case file had, therefore, to be sent to the Regional Court which, on 26 January 2000, dismissed the applicant's motion. 42.  On 17 February and 15 March 2000 respectively, the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court on his third constitutional appeals introduced on 28 June and 2 August 1999. 43.  On 24 February 2000 the applicant filed a fifth constitutional appeal, challenging the decision of the Regional Court of 26 January 2000 dismissing his request for the exclusion of the single judge. 44.  A hearing on 21 March 2000 was cancelled due to the applicant's illness. 45.  On 30 March 2000 the president of the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that the judge rapporteur (soudce zpravodaj) dealing with his third constitutional appeal was ill and had to resign from her functions. He assured the applicant that a new judge rapporteur would be appointed. 46.  A hearing scheduled for 30 May 2000 was adjourned to 3 October 2000. At the second hearing, the court heard witnesses. It adjourned the hearing to 7 November 2000. 47.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant again modified his action for the protection of his personality. 48.  On 3 October 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's fifth constitutional appeal since the civil proceedings were still pending and it would be open to him to appeal against a judgment on the merits once it was adopted. 49.  On the same day, the Municipal Court held a hearing. Another hearing was scheduled for 7 November 2000 following the applicant's request to continue hearing the defendants. 50.  On 26 October 2000 the applicant was informed that the hearing before the Municipal Court scheduled for 7 November 2000 would be held on 5 December 2000 because the defendants' lawyers could not attend. On that day, the Municipal Court resumed its examination of the applicant's case. The next hearing was scheduled for 20 February 2001. 51.  On 12 December 2000 the case file was again sent to the Constitutional Court in connection with the applicant's third constitutional appeal. It was returned on 13 February 2001. 52.  A hearing scheduled for 20 February 2001 was adjourned to 3 April 2001 and then to 3 May 2001. The applicant was informed of this on 22 March 2001. 53.  On 29 May 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's fourth constitutional appeal. His third constitutional appeal was dismissed on 12 June 2001. 54.  On 14 May 2002 the applicant submitted to the Municipal Court a request for leave to modify the merits of his action. On 16 April 2003 the court refused to grant the modification. 55.  On 30 May 2003 the applicant complained of the delays in the proceedings to the president of the Municipal Court. The latter replied on 4 June 2003, finding the complaints unsubstantiated. 56.  In the meantime, on 3 June 2003 a hearing had been held before the Municipal Court. On 1 July 2003, the Municipal Court requested the applicant to rectify, within 15 days, his action in its amended versions authorised by the court on 20 March and 12 November 1998 and 3 October 2003. In his reply of 24 July 2003, the applicant insisted that his action had been submitted in the appropriate form and had set out all relevant matters. 57.  In his letter of 4 June 2003 addressed to the applicant, the vice-president of the Regional Court admitted that there had been delays in the proceedings. 58.  On 23 September 2003 the applicant submitted his written comments on the state of the proceedings to the Municipal Court. On the same day, the court requested the applicant to rectify his action within 30 days by submitting a statement of relevant facts and evidence. The applicant replied on 5 November 2003. 59.  On 20 November 2003 the Municipal Court held a hearing at which it approved a friendly-settlement agreement reached between the parties.