4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Snina. 5.  In the 1950s State authorities took land and other agricultural property from the applicant’s father. The property was put at the disposal of a cooperative. Following the fall of the communist regime the applicant and the other members of the family sought restitution of the property. They relied mainly on the Land Ownership Act 1991. The following relevant events occurred and decisions were taken in that context. 6.  In August 1991 and on 20 November 1992 the applicant, together with other members of her family, claimed restitution of three plots of land which were used by a cooperative. 7.  On 2 December 1992 the Land Office in Michalovce found that the claimants were entitled to have the land restored to them. It further decided that the claimants were co-owners of the land at issue. 8.  On 29 December 1992 the cooperative challenged that decision before the Košice Regional Court. 9.  On 23 March 1993 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decision. 10.  On 26 May 1993 the Land Office in Michalovce again found that the applicant and four other persons were the owners of the land and that it should be restored to them. 11.  On 21 July 1993 a record was drawn up in the presence of the applicant’s advocate indicating that the cooperative had returned the land to the owners. 12.  On 23 July 1993 the Land Office in Michalovce issued a decision confirming that the plots of land had been returned to the applicant and the other claimants. 13.  In August 1991 and on 20 November 1992 the applicant and other persons also claimed compensation for livestock and movable property which had been taken from their predecessor. 14.  As no agreement had been reached by the parties, the applicant claimed compensation before the Michalovce District Court in 1993. 15.  On 23 August 1994 the District Court asked an expert to assess the value of the property. 16.  On 15 February 1995 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judge from the case. 17.  On 7 September 1995 the District Court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant a part of the sum claimed. It decided to deal separately with the outstanding claim. On the defendant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 19 September 1997. 18.  On 23 January 1998 the District Court joined the excluded claim to the original set of proceedings and ordered the defendant to compensate the applicant for the property at issue. The judgment stated that the administrator in insolvency of the cooperative had accepted the claim and had agreed that the proceedings on this claim continue notwithstanding that insolvency proceedings had been brought against the defendant cooperative in the meantime. 19.  The judgment became final on 12 March 1998. 20.  In 1993 the applicant claimed compensation for agricultural buildings belonging to her late father which had been destroyed. 21.  On 30 May 1994 the Michalovce District Court ordered the defendant cooperative to pay compensation to the applicant. The defendant appealed. The applicant submitted observations on the appeal on 4 October 1994. 22.  On 15 November 1994 the defendant challenged the District Court judge. On 30 January 1995 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the request. 23.  On 6 October 1995 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment to the extent that it obliged the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant. 24.  On 1 July 1996 the District Court ordered an expert to assess the value of the destroyed barn within thirty days. 25.  On 23 January 1998 the District Court ordered the defendant to compensate the applicant for the damage to the property at issue. The judgment stated that the administrator in insolvency of the cooperative had accepted the claim and had agreed that the proceedings on this claim continue notwithstanding the fact that insolvency proceedings had been brought against the defendant cooperative in the meantime. 26.  The judgment became final on 12 March 1998. 27.  On 12 November 2007 the District Court ordered its financial department to return 28.40 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of EUR 0.94) to the applicant. This sum was the balance of an advance payment made by the applicant in 1994. On the same day the District Court also ruled on an expert’s fees and ordered its financial department to pay, from the State resources, an amount of money to the expert. The applicant appealed on 12 February 2008. No further information has been made available. 4. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s share in a cooperative’s property (Michalovce District Court files 10 C 806/94 and 10 C 843/96) 28.  On 7 March 1994 the applicant requested the cooperative in Zemplínske Hámre to put at her disposal her share of the cooperative’s property. 29.  As her request was not granted, the applicant sued the cooperative before the Michalovce District Court on 24 August 1994. 30.  On 30 December 1994 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s request for the withdrawal of the District Court judge. 31.  A hearing before the District Court was scheduled for 27 January 1995. On 23 January 1995 the defendant cooperative informed the court that it would prefer an out-of-court settlement. 32.  On 18 September 1995 the District Court ordered the defendant to pay SKK 82,363.92 to the applicant. It decided to determine in separate proceedings the remainder of the action related to the applicant’s share in the cooperative’s property. On 24 November 1995 the defendant appealed. As it later withdrew the appeal, the Regional Court discontinued the appellate proceedings on 11 June 1996. The judgment became final on 27 June 1996. 33.  On 24 July 1996 the applicant requested an executions office to enforce the sum awarded to her by the above decision of 18 September 1995. 34.  On 3 June 1997 the executions office replied that insolvency proceedings had been brought against the debtor. It was open to the applicant to register her claim in the context of the insolvency proceedings pending before the Košice Regional Court. 35.  On 30 March 1998 the District Court ordered the defendant to pay an additional sum to the applicant corresponding to her share in the cooperative’s property. The judgment stated that the administrator in insolvency of the cooperative had accepted the claim and had agreed that the proceedings on this claim continue notwithstanding that insolvency proceedings had been brought against the defendant cooperative in the meantime. 36.  The judgment became final on 21 April 1998. 37.  On 2 April 1996 a bank sought to have the above cooperative declared insolvent. 38.  On 16 May 1997 the Košice Regional Court started insolvency proceedings against the cooperative and appointed an administrator to it. 39.  On 8 September 1997 the applicant registered her claims against the debtor in the context of the insolvency proceedings. On 5 March 1998 she specified the sum claimed at the Regional Court’s request. 40.  The administrator in insolvency died on 29 May 1998. A different person was appointed to carry out that function on 27 August 1998. 41.  On 12 March 1999 the Regional Court asked the administrator to submit a report on the cooperative’s property and its realisation. The administrator did not reply. He was summoned for 26 November 1999 but failed to appear before the Regional Court. The latter therefore appointed a new administrator in insolvency on 31 January 2000. 42.  On 25 May 1999 the acting President of the Regional Court informed the applicant, in reply to her complaint, about the developments in the insolvency proceedings. The letter stated that, due to the judges’ heavy workload, the proceedings had not yet ended. 43.  On 13 February 2000 the newly appointed administrator requested that he be released from that function as he was biased. On 5 May 2000 the Regional Court granted the request and appointed a different person as administrator in insolvency of the cooperative. That decision became final on 14 June 2000. 44.  On 2 July 2001 a hearing was held with a view to classifying the claims of the creditors. 45.  On 24 September 2001 the Regional Court gave its agreement to the sale of a part of the cooperative’s property. Sales of the property were carried out in November 2001, January 2002 and May 2002. 46.  A meeting of creditors was held on 31 October 2002. 47.  On 3 February 2003 the Regional Court granted the administrator’s request for removal from the office and appointed a new administrator in insolvency. 48.  In April, June and December 2003 three sales of property were carried out. 49.  On 10 May 2004 the administrator informed the Regional Court that a part of the property included in the insolvency assets constituted the subject matter of another set of proceedings which was pending before the Regional Court (file 17 Cb 705/01). In these proceedings one of the creditors (other than the applicant) requested that a part of the property be excluded from the insolvency assets. The administrator stated that, as a result, the insolvency proceedings could not continue. 50.  In May 2004 a sale of the property was carried out. 51.  On 29 October 2004 the Regional Court ordered the administrator to submit a report on his activities. The latter complied with the order on 18 November 2004. 52.  On 18 February 2005 the case was assigned to a new judge at the Regional Court. The judge ordered the administrator to inform the court of his activities in the insolvency. The administrator’s reply was delivered to the court on 16 March 2005. He stated, inter alia, that the insolvency proceedings could not continue, as the above proceedings concerning a creditor’s request for exclusion of a part of the property from the insolvency assets had not ended yet (file 17 Cb 705/01). 53.  The administrator asked to be removed from the office due to his long-term stay abroad. A new administrator was appointed on 12 December 2005. 54.  On 24 May 2006 the Regional Court received a report from the administrator in the insolvency. 55.  According to the information available, the proceedings were still pending on 16 July 2008. 56.  On 28 March 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Košice Regional Court had violated her right to a hearing without unjustified delay in the insolvency proceedings against the cooperative. 57.  On 13 August 2002 the applicant’s representative submitted further information at the Constitutional Court’s request. The advocate indicated that, in particular, unjustified delays had occurred between 10 May 1999 and 31 January 2000 and from 13 February 2000 to 14 June 2000. The letter referred to the heavy workload of judges dealing with insolvency cases. It concluded that, given the overall length of the proceedings, the Regional Court had not proceeded with the applicant’s case in an appropriate manner. 58.  On 17 December 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. The decision stated that it was the Regional Court’s task to avail itself of the means available with a view to ensuring that the administrator in insolvency proceeded in an appropriate manner. As to the first period referred to by the applicant, the Regional Court had taken several steps, including the revocation of the administrator and the appointment of a new one. As to the second period, the administrator had requested that he be released from that function on 13 February 2000, and the Regional Court had decided on that request on 5 May 2000, that is after less than three months. That period was not an unjustified delay.