4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Trenčín. 5.  On 16 November 1999 the applicant challenged the validity of a company's statute before the Trenčín Regional Court. The case was registered under the file number 7 Cb 73/99. 6.  The case was dealt with by the Regional Court. The Supreme Court examined, for three months, the applicant's request for an interim measure. 7.  On 7 May 2003 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings as there was an obstacle of litis pendens. The applicant's appealed. 8.  On 4 August 2003 the file was transferred to the Supreme Court which quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The file was transferred back to the latter on 31 October 2003. 9.  On 20 May 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment on the applicant's claims. 10.  The defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the Supreme Court on 11 October 2004. 11.  On 3 November 2005 the Supreme Court adopted a judgment which was served on the parties and became final on 20 December 2005. 12.  In 2000 the applicant filed two and in 2003 one action, in which he challenged decisions taken at a company's general meeting. 13.  The Regional Court dealt with the first action in proceedings no. 7 Cb 13/00. Its judgment was partially upheld and partially amended by the Supreme Court. The judgment became final on 21 June 2005. 14.  The second action was examined in the proceedings 7 Cb 60/00. On 20 May 2004 it was joined to and decided upon in the proceedings 7 Cb 73/99 mentioned above (see point A). 15.  The proceedings on the third action (file no. 7 Cbs 5/03) ended by the Supreme Court's decision of 20 June 2007. 16.  On 18 August 2004, on the applicant's complaint, the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings no. 7 Cb 73/99. The length of the proceedings was partly due to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. The Regional Court had remained inactive for a period exceeding two years. The overall length of the proceedings was in itself excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. 17.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Regional Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs. It held that its finding in itself provided appropriate just satisfaction to the applicant. The Constitutional Court, therefore, dismissed the applicant's claim in that respect.