4.  The applicants were born in 1974, 1956 and 1961 respectively and live in Tvrdošín. 5.  On 27 September 2000 the first applicant initiated civil proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court against a company claiming a sum of money. 6.  On 28 March 2003 the District Court issued an interim measure upon the first applicant's request of 3 October 2002. The defendant appealed. 7.  On 24 September 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court. 8.  On 23 January 2004 the second and third applicants joined the proceedings as plaintiffs. 9.  On 10 August 2004 the District Court dismissed the first applicant's interim measure request. The applicants appealed. 10.  On 21 April 2005 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and returned the case to the District Court. 11.  On 21 February 2006 the District Court issued the interim measure. 12.  On 4 August 2006 the District Court granted the action in part and dismissed the remainder. The first applicant appealed. 13.  On 31 October 2008 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court. The decision was served on the applicants' legal representative on 19 December 2008. 14.  On 5 November 2009 the District Court granted the action. The judgment became final in January 2010. 15.  On 15 March 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court complaining of delays in the proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court. 16.  On 30 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the first applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him of 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to proceed without further delays and to reimburse the first applicant's legal costs. 17.  On 9 March 2005 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court that the District Court and the Regional Court in the proceedings on the merits had violated their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They also complained that the courts had not respected the statutory time‑limit of thirty days for deciding on the interim measure. 18.  On 23 August 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' complaint. It found that the entire proceedings had lasted quite a long time. Nevertheless, the conduct of both courts could not be considered to have violated the applicants' right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 19.  On 15 August 2007 the first applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the appeal proceeding before the Regional Court had lasted too long. On 11 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It held that the length of the appeal proceedings could not be considered unreasonable. 20.  In December 2008 the first applicant again complained to the Constitutional Court that the appeal proceedings before the Regional Court had lasted too long. 21.  On 21 January 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It held that on 15 December 2008, when the constitutional complaint was filed with the Constitutional Court, the court file had been returned to the District Court for a new decision. Thus, at the moment of the lodging of the constitutional complaint, the Regional Court could no longer violate the first applicant's rights.