4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Jaklovce. 5.  On 14 June 1995 the Spišská Nová Ves District Court started inheritance proceedings in respect of the estate of a relative of the applicant. At that time the applicant’s mother was one of the heirs of the testator. 6.  After the official appointed by the court had gathered all the information required, the District Court gave a decision on the distribution of the estate on 18 September 1996. Both parties appealed. 7.  The Košice Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision on 28 July 1997. 8.  On 23 June 1998 the file was transmitted to the notary appointed to act as the court’s officer in the case. 9.  A different notary was appointed on 8 October 1999. 10.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant’s mother died. She bequeathed her share in the inheritance to the applicant. 11.  Five hearings were scheduled before 22 January 2002, when a different notary was appointed to act as the court’s officer in the case. 12.  The applicant challenged all the judges of the District Court on the ground that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. On 30 September 2002 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judges. 13.  On 10 December 2002 the officer of the District Court drew up a list of the estate. The District Court decided on its distribution on the same day. 14.  On 21 December 2002 the applicant appealed. The file was transferred to the Regional Court on 21 February 2003. 15.  On 31 March 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on the merits and quashed the part concerning the costs. 16.  On 30 May 2003 the District Court gave a decision on the costs of the inheritance proceedings and the notary’s fees. 17.  On 27 August 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision to the extent that it concerned the notary’s fees. 18.  On 23 December 2003 the District Court decided on the notary’s fees. The decision became final on 18 February 2004. 19.  On 23 February 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to settle the court fees, which had not been fully paid. 20.  The applicant complied with the request on 12 May 2004. 21.  On 5 August 1996 the applicant lodged an action with the Spišská Nová Ves District Court, claiming a sum of money (the equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros (EUR)) from the heirs in the above inheritance proceedings. The applicant had spent that sum on the reconstruction of the house which belonged to her relative’s estate. The proceedings were given the file number 4 C 720/96. 22.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant and her husband sought legal recognition that the sum equivalent to approximately EUR 2,500 which they had invested in the house of the applicant’s relative did not form a part of the testator’s estate. That claim was attributed file number 7 C 768/99 until 20 December 2000, when the District Court decided that it should be joined to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1996. 23.  On 26 June 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the action of 1996 because the applicant had withdrawn her claim. It further granted leave to the applicant to amend her claim of 1999. The District Court decided to deal with the newly submitted claim in a separate set of proceedings (see below). 24.  As indicated above, on 26 June 2003 the District Court permitted a modification of the claim of 1999. By the new action the applicant sought that the sum of money which she and her husband had invested in the real estate concerned be declared a part of their matrimonial property. The District Court decided to deal with the new claim in a separate set of proceedings (file number 10 C 40/03). 25.  On 13 December 2004 the District Court dismissed the amended action. 26.  On 27 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. 27.  The applicant complained before the Constitutional Court that the District Court had violated her right to a hearing within a reasonable time in three sets of proceedings (file nos. D 745/95, 4 C 720/96 and 7 C 768/99). 28.  On 2 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and its constitutional equivalent in those sets of proceedings. 29.  As regards the inheritance proceedings (D 745/95), the Constitutional Court found that the case was not complex. The parties had partially contributed to the length of the proceedings in that they had challenged court officers three times. The other two sets of proceedings were not complex (although a preliminary question had needed to be determined in the inheritance proceedings), and the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to their length. 30.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the overall amount of 70,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK – the equivalent of approximately EUR 1,700 at that time) as just satisfaction. It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the applicant’s cases, to the extent that the proceedings were still pending before it, without further delay. It ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs the applicant had incurred in the constitutional proceedings in the amount she claimed.