7.  On 26 March 1993 the applicant claimed damages resulting from the termination of his membership of a co-operative before the Trnava District Court. On 20 September 1993 the latter allowed the applicant’s claims in part. 8.  The defendant and the applicant appealed respectively on 8 and 13 October 1993. On 13 December 1993 the applicant submitted reasons for his appeal. On 23 December 1993 the case was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court. 9.  On 31 January 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment on the ground that the reasoning was insufficient. 10.  The District Court held hearings on 30 March, 25 April and 23 May 1994. 11.  Another hearing scheduled for 13 June 1994 had to be adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer had failed to appear. On 6 July 1994 the District Court again adjourned the case as the applicant’s lawyer had failed to submit written observations in time. 12.  On 15 July 1994 the applicant challenged the Trnava District Court judge dealing with his case. On 16 August 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the objection. 13.  On 24 October 1994 the Trnava District Court delivered a new judgment allowing the applicant’s claim for damages in part. The parties appealed and the case was submitted to the appellate court on 12 December 1994. 14.  On 7 July 1995 the case had to be adjourned as neither the applicant nor his lawyer appeared. 15.  On 31 July 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment on the ground that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. The case was transferred to another chamber of the Regional Court on 2 October 1995. 16.  On 24 June 1996 the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant, that there had been undue delays in the proceedings. 17.  Between 17 July 1996 and 25 December 1996 the judge dealing with the case took several procedural steps. 18.  On 24 January 1997 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court apologised to the applicant for delays in the proceedings and informed him that a hearing was scheduled for 28 January 1997. 19.  On the latter date the court heard the defendant and adjourned the case until 25 March 1997 as it was not clear whether the applicant’s lawyer had received the summons. On 24 March 1997 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that he no longer represented the applicant. On 25 March 1997 the Regional Court therefore adjourned the case until 22 April 1997. 20.  On 22 April 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant failed to show that he had suffered damage. On 2 May 1997 the applicant appealed. The case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 26 May 1997. On 3 June 1997 the Supreme Court returned the case to the Regional Court and instructed the latter to decide on the fees for the appeal proceedings. The Regional Court delivered a decision on court fees on 14 June 1997 and sent the case to the Supreme Court on 1 August 1997. 21.  On 22 December 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the first instance judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Regional Court had not established the relevant facts of the case. 22.  On 4 February 1998 the applicant requested the exclusion of the Regional Court judges dealing with his case. He alleged, in particular, that the judges had decided on his claim erroneously and that they had caused delays in the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the request on 24 August 1998. The case file was returned to the Regional Court on 9 October 1998. 23.  On 30 November 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action of 26 March 1993. On 29 December 1998 the applicant appealed. The case was submitted to the Supreme Court on 3 February 1999. 24.  On 15 July 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment of 30 November 1998. The Supreme Court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation and held that it was for the first instance court to determine the amount. The case file was returned to the Regional Court on 21 July 1999. 25.  On 17 February 2000 the Supreme Court excluded the Regional Court judge dealing with the case at her own request. 26.  On 25 April 2000 the case was assigned to another judge. 27.  On 22 February 2001 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay had been violated. The decision stated that the case was not complex and that what was at stake for the applicant called for particular diligence. The Constitutional Court found no particular delays in the proceedings which should be imputed to the applicant. As to the conduct of the general courts, the Constitutional Court pointed out, in particular, that there had been delays imputable to the Bratislava Regional Court between 12 December 1994 and 31 July 1995, between 2 October 1995 and 17 July 1996, between 25 November 1996 and 22 April 1997 and between 21 July 1999 and 4 January 2000. Those delays amounted to an overall period of twenty-five months. Furthermore, the proceedings were slowed down due to the fact that the Supreme Court had to quash repeatedly the lower court’s decisions. 28.  According to its case-law, the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction, at the relevant time, to draw legal consequences from its finding of a violation of a person’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It could neither award damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for such a violation. 29.  On 23 February 2001 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court assigned the case to another judge as the judge appointed on 25 April 2000 had left the court. 30.  Hearings were held on 16 and 31 May 2001. On the latter date the case was adjourned, until 20 September 2001, as the applicant’s representative could not attend due to illness. 31.  On 25 September 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court allowed the applicant to extend his claims for compensation for pecuniary damage. It further decided to deal with the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages in a separate set of proceedings. On 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against this decision. 32.  A hearing scheduled for 29 November 2001 was cancelled as the Supreme Court had not yet returned the file to the Regional Court. 33.  On 14 March 2002 the Bratislava Regional Court delivered a judgment in which it granted a part of the applicant’s claims. On 2 May 2002 the applicant appealed. The proceedings are pending.