5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 24 March 1992 the applicant claimed restitution of real property before the Považská Bystrica District Court. He relied on the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. 7.  The District Court held a number of hearings and took extensive evidence. In a judgment of 11 August 1995 it ordered the defendant to restore the property to the applicant. 8.  On 6 November 1996 the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica quashed the first-instance judgment. 9.  After several hearings the District Court delivered its second judgment on 13 January 2000. It granted the applicant’s claim. The defendant appealed. On 30 November 2001 the court of appeal quashed that judgment. 10.  In a third judgment, delivered on 26 February 2004, the District Court ordered the defendant to restore the property to the applicant. The Regional Court quashed the judgment on 10 May 2005. 11.  In a fourth judgment delivered on 21 November 2005 the District Court partly granted the applicant’s claim. On 10 February 2006 one defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the court of appeal on 16 February 2006. 12.  On 26 September 2006 the Regional Court in Trenčín upheld the relevant part of the first-instance judgment. The decision to grant the applicant’s claim in part became final on 16 November 2006. 13.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant petitioned an executions officer for execution of the District Court’s judgment of 21 November 2005 in conjunction with the Regional Court’s judgment of 26 September 2006. 14.  On 17 May 2007 the District Court in Žilina authorised the officer to execute the judgments. 15.  On 8 June 2007 the debtor objected to the notification of the execution as being unclear. The executions officer submitted the objection to the District Court in Žilina. The execution proceedings are pending. 16.  On 8 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Považská Bystrica had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court admitted that the case was complex from both a factual and legal point of view. 17.  The applicant by his conduct had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. In particular, he had been asked three times to specify his claim and to submit relevant documents. Between 8 December 1994 and 19 April 1995 the parties had attempted to reach an agreement. The applicant had failed to appear before the court on 15 September 1992, 15 December 1997, 10 and 25 May 1999 and 10 January 2000. On 16 October 2002 the applicant had requested that a third party be allowed to join the proceedings; on 3 February 2003 he had extended his claim. 18.  Finally, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had not dealt with the case in an effective manner. The District Court had remained inactive between 17 December 1992 and 25 June 1993 as well as from 11 August 1995 to 1 July 1996. It had delivered three judgments on the merits which the court of appeal had quashed on the ground that the District Court had not sufficiently established the relevant facts and had made procedural mistakes. The overall length of the proceedings was unacceptable in the circumstances. 19.  The Constitutional Court granted SKK 80,000 (the equivalent of EUR 2,115 at that time) as just satisfaction to the applicant. It ordered the District Court in Považská Bystrica to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.