4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava. 5.  On 22 September 2000 a housing cooperative filed an action before the Trnava District Court against the applicant, seeking payment of a sum of money. 6.  On 7 October 2002 the District Court decided against the applicant and dismissed his counterclaim. The applicant lodged an appeal. 7.  On 18 November 2002 the applicant complained about unjustified delays to the President of the District Court and challenged a District Court judge for bias. 8.  On 31 March 2003 his request for waiver of the court fees was dismissed by a judicial clerk. The applicant filed an appeal. 9.  On 8 August 2003 the case file was transferred to the Trnava Regional Court. On 4 September 2003 the Regional Court remitted it back, as the District Court had failed to decide on the applicant's appeal in respect of his request for waiver of the court fees. On 23 February 2004 a District Court judge dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 30 June 2004 the case file was transferred to the Regional Court. On 13 August 2004 the Regional Court remitted it to the District Court, as the decision of 23 February 2004 was delivered by the judge who had previously been challenged for bias by the applicant. Following a statement by the judge concerned as to her alleged bias, the case file was transferred to the Regional Court on 23 September 2004. On 30 September 2004 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judge in question from dealing with and deciding on the case. 11.  On 31 January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment and confirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a waiver of the court fees. The case file was remitted to the District Court on 18 February 2005. 12.  On 13 February 2006 the District Court decided against the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 4 April 2006 the file was transferred to the Regional Court which, on 17 July 2006, quashed the first-instance judgment. 13.  On 11 January 2007 the applicant lodged a counterclaim. On 21 February 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees for lodging his counterclaim. The applicant appealed and the file was transferred to the Regional Court on 14 March 2007. On 13 April 2007 the Regional Court remitted it back as being submitted prematurely. On 18 April 2007 the file was repeatedly transmitted to the Regional Court. On 30 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision of 21 February 2007. 14.  Between January and October 2007 the District Court held 6 hearings. On 29 October 2007 the District Court delivered its third judgment and decided against the applicant. 15.  On 9 November 2007 the applicant appealed. On 27 February 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees for lodging his appeal. The applicant appealed. On 27 March 2008 the file was transferred to the Regional Court which, on 18 April 2008, upheld the first-instance decision of 27 February 2008. 16.  On 5 November 2008 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 29 October 2007. According to the information submitted by the applicant a hearing was to be held on 10 June 2009 before the District Court. 17.  On 15 March 2004 the applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, challenging the length of the proceedings before the Trnava District Court. 18.  On 4 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint. It noted that, in accordance with its long-established practice, it could examine complaints in respect of the length of the proceedings only if the proceedings were still pending before the authority liable for the alleged violation. The proceedings before the District Court had ended before the introduction of his constitutional complaint. 19.  On 7 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Trnava District Court, of which the applicant exclusively complained, had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. 20.  The Constitutional Court held that there was a degree of factual complexity to the case which could not, however, justify the length of the proceedings. The applicant's conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. However, the exercise of his procedural rights (counterclaim, challenge of a judge for bias, waiver of the court fees) had prolonged the proceedings, which could not be imputed to the relevant authority. The District Court's ineffective performance (from delivery of its judgment, two years had passed before the case file was duly transferred to the Regional Court for decision on the applicant's appeals; its judgment was quashed on account of insufficient establishment of the facts) had resulted in avoidable delays. 21.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 20,000 (the equivalent of 514 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Trnava District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.