5.  The applicant is a company with its registered office in Viničné. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 23 March 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Rožňava District Court concerning the payment of a sum of money. 8.  On 30 March 1998 the case was transferred to the Košice Regional Court. 9.  On 26 November 2000 the Regional Court granted the action. 10.  On 26 January 2001 the defendant appealed. 11.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Regional Court. 12.  On 15 May 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the action. 13.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant appealed. 14.  On 26 October 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Regional Court. 15.  On 14 March 2005 the Regional Court granted the action. 16.  On 17 May 2005 the defendant appealed. 17.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of the proceedings in its action. 18.  On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed a part of the applicant’s complaint concerning the delays in the proceedings before the Supreme Court as being belated. It stated that in relation to the appeal proceedings the applicant had failed to lodge the complaint within the statutory 2 months’ period as the Supreme Court’s decisions had become final on 24 April 2002 and 27 December 2004. 19.  On 10 October 2005 the case was transferred to the Supreme Court. 20.  On 9 November 2005 the Supreme Court returned the case to the Regional Court without a decision on the merits. 21.  On 11 January 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. 22.  It ordered the Regional Court to proceed without delay and awarded 30,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), (the equivalent of 800 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs. 23.  On 6 September 2007 the Supreme Court partly upheld the Regional Court’s decision of 14 March 2005 and on 28 September 2007 it returned the case for a decision on the matter of costs and expenses to the Regional Court. 24.  On 20 February 2008 the Regional Court requested the applicant’s legal representative to submit all necessary documents. 25.  On 16 April 2008 the Regional Court imposed a fine on the applicant’s legal representative. 26.  On 12 May 2008 the applicant’s legal representative specified the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses. 27.  On 12 June 2008 the Regional Court quashed the decision imposing a fine on the applicant’s legal representative. 28.  On 5 November 2008 the Regional Court issued a decision on costs and expenses. The decision became final on 29 November 2008.