4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Košice. 5.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against several individuals and State organs, requesting that the Košice II District Court declare null and void a contract by which she had transferred her title to a flat to two of the defendants. She also asked the court to order another defendant to vacate the flat and leave it at the applicant's disposal. 6.  The file was transferred to the Košice I District Court on 19 April 2001 for reasons of jurisdiction. 7.  On 10 February 2003 she complained to the President of the Košice I District Court about the length of the proceedings. 8.  On 3 July 2003 the District Court admitted another defendant to the proceedings. The latter appealed and the file was transferred to the Košice Regional Court. 9.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings. 10.  On 7 October 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 July 2003. 11.  On 25 April 2005 the District Court found in the applicant's favour. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of two State organs. Following an appeal, the case was transferred to the Regional Court on 25 October 2005. 12.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant inquired about any obstacles preventing the Regional Court from dealing with the case. 13.  On 9 October 2010 she complained to the President of the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings. 14.  On 31 May 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment, except of the part concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings, and remitted the case to the District Court. 15.  On 4 May 2009 the District Court found against the applicant. 16.  The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending. 17.  On 23 December 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of proceedings. 18.  On 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length of proceedings complaint inadmissible. It held that the part of the complaint concerning the proceedings before the District Court was manifestly ill-founded, as this period of the proceedings had already ended and the District Court could no longer violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. 19.  It expressed the view that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of the period of the proceedings before the Regional Court, as she had not lodged a complaint of their length to the President of the Regional Court. The decision stated that the applicant's complaint of 22 September 2003 could not be considered as such remedy because it had been lodged during another stage of the proceedings, when the Regional Court was examining the first-instance decision to admit another defendant to the proceedings.