4.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava prison. 5.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Nitra District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to apologise for statements accusing the applicant of an offence and to pay compensation. 6.  On 28 May 2004 the case-file was transmitted to the Pieštany District Court due to local jurisdiction. That court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees on 6 September 2004. It obtained a statement from the defendant on 15 October 2004. 7.  On 23 June 2005 the case-file was transmitted to the Trnava District Court due to reorganisation of the judicial system. In the course of 2006 and the first half of 2007 it examined the applicant’s situation in view of his request for exemption from court fees. It also established the address of the defendant to whom it sent the action for observations on 22 June 2007. The applicant replied to the defendant’s observations on 24 September 2007. 8.  On 1 April 2008 the case-file was returned to the Piešťany District Court due to restructuring of the judiciary. On 11 December 2008 that court inquired about the applicant’s financial situation. On the basis of a reply of 12 January 2009 the Piešťany District Court, on 10 June 2009, decided (i) that the applicant was obliged to pay the court fees, and (ii) not to appoint a legal aid lawyer to the applicant. 9.  On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings. It admitted certain periods of inactivity which, however, were not such as to amount to a breach of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay. 10.  On 30 November 2009 the Trnava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision of 10 June 2009. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law. 11.  On 5 February 2010 the Piešťany District Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s action as the latter had not paid the court fee. On 26 February 2010 the applicant appealed. On 21 January 2011 the Trnava Regional Court upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law. 12.  On 28 May 2012 the Piešťany District Court referred the applicant to the Centre for Legal Assistance with his request for legal assistance in the proceedings on his appeal on points of law. On 1 August 2012 the applicant informed the Court that his request for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him had not yet been determined by the Centre for Legal Assistance. The proceedings on the appeal on points of law are pending. 13.  On 7 February 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint as having been lodged out of time. It considered the complaint to be directed, in substance, against the Piešťany District Court and held that the proceedings complained of had ended with final effect. The constitutional review of their duration was therefore excluded. 14.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action with the Nitra District Court. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage from an individual. 15.  On 23 September 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the action holding that the applicant had failed to remedy its formal shortcomings. On 27 November 2003 the Nitra Regional Court quashed that decision and returned the case at first instance. In the meantime, on 23 October 2003, the applicant re-submitted his claim to the Nitra District Court. 16.  Subsequently several decisions were taken at two levels with a view to establishing which court had jurisdiction to deal with the case. It was ultimately assigned to the Galanta District Court which received the file on 19 May 2005. 17.  The District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee on 26 October 2005. Between September 2005 and April 2006 the District Court obtained information about the factual background to the case. On 3 May 2006 it stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings which it considered relevant for determination of the applicant’s civil action (see paragraphs 25-26 below). 18.  On 16 April 2008 the applicant modified his action. He also asked for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him in the proceedings. The District Court granted that request on 4 September 2008. 19.  On 4 June 2009 the District Court received the criminal courts’ files. It decided to resume the civil proceedings on 16 July 2009. 20.  Between July 2009 and July 2011 the District Court scheduled six hearings and it made arrangements for questioning the applicant in prison. On 17 December 2009 the applicant modified his claim. In June 2011 he challenged the District Court judge. The request was dismissed by the Trnava Regional Court on 5 October 2011. 21.  Subsequently the judge sought arrangements with the prison administration with a view to ensuring the applicant’s attendance at a hearing. On 3 May 2012 the applicant’s lawyer was asked to specify the questions to be put to witnesses. The proceedings are pending. 22.  On 1 July 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the civil proceedings concerning the above action. It noted that the Galanta District Court had proceeded with the case without unjustified delays and that it had to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in which criminal charges against the applicant were to be determined. 23.  On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court declared manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s second complaint about the length of the proceedings. It held that the District Court had resumed its dealing with the case following the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant. 24.  On 27 July 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s third complaint about the length of the proceedings as being manifestly ill‑founded. It held that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. 25.  In proceedings which had the file no. 1 T 2/2005 before the Nitra Regional Court the criminal charges against the applicant were determined by criminal courts at three levels on 10 October 2005, 8 February 2006 and 19 March 2007 respectively. 26.  In proceedings which had the file no. 1 T 1/2005 before the Nitra Regional Court the criminal charges against the applicant were determined by criminal courts on 17 January 2007 (first instance), 7 November 2007 (court of appeal), 2 March 2009 and 16 June 2010 (cassation court). On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about delays in the proceedings before the cassation court. 27.  On 24 November 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about unfairness of the above-mentioned two sets of criminal proceedings.