5.  The applicants are a mother and a daughter. They were born in 1961 and 1990 respectively and live in Vienna (Austria). 6.  On 12 March 1990 the first applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava V. District Court (Okresný súd) against Mr B., a Hungarian national living in Hungary. She sought rulings declaring that B. was the father of the second applicant, granting her custody over the second applicant, and ordering B. to contribute to the second applicant’s maintenance. 7.  Before 18 March 1992, the date on which the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovakia, the District Court held 5 hearings and sent a letter rogatory to the Hungarian court in the judicial district where the defendant resided, seeking the defendant’s observations in reply. 8.  On 22 May 1992 the District Court ordered that a blood test be carried out in order to establish paternity. It subsequently appointed an expert to perform the test and ordered that the first applicant lodge a sum with the court in respect of the expert’s costs. 9.  On 26 August 1993 the District Court requested the first applicant to state whether she wished to continue the action. On 3 April 1995 the District Court informed her that it was impossible to proceed with the case since the whereabouts of B. were unknown. In response, on 11 October 1995, the first applicant indicated to the District Court the place where she believed the defendant was employed. 10.  On 31 October 1995 the District Court decided to stay the proceedings. On 10 May and 4 June 1996 it again invited the first applicant to state whether she wished to pursue her claims and asked whether or not she knew the address of the defendant. 11.  In September 1996 the District Court requested assistance from the Slovakian Ministry of Justice in ascertaining the address of the defendant. The Ministry submitted the address on 3 February 1997. 12.  On 29 September 1997 the District Court interviewed the first applicant and she confirmed her intention to pursue the action. 13.  On 5 February 1998 the District Court again ordered that blood tests be carried out and appointed another expert to do so. 14.  On 30 June 1999, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court granted the action and on 14 April 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed its judgment on the defendant’s appeal on the ground that the District Court had failed to establish the facts adequately. The case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination. 15.  On 31 July 2002 the District Court sent a letter rogatory to the court in charge of the case in Hungary, requesting it to obtain and provide blood samples from the defendant. 16.  On 12 February and 2 July 2004 the District Court imposed fines of, respectively, 5,000[1] and 25,000[2] Slovakian korunas (SKK) on the expert for having failed to produce the DNA report in time. 17.  On 21 January 2005 the expert submitted his report. He concluded that, with a 99.99% degree of probability, the defendant was the father of the second applicant. 18.  On 16 February 2005, on the applicants’ motion, the District Court indicated an interim measure ordering that, as from that day, the defendant was to pay SKK 4,000[3] per month towards the maintenance of the second applicant. The defendant appealed. 19.  On 17 May 2005 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicants modified the scope of their claim for maintenance. The defendant did not attend. 20.  Between 10 November 2004 and 19 May 2005 the District Court sent 3 letters rogatory to the court in Hungary requesting assistance on various matters. 21.  On 7 July 2005 the first applicant made a written submission to the District Court. She maintained that the defendant was evading service of the decision of 16 February 2005 and that, as long as the decision had not been served on him, it could not be enforced. She therefore proposed that the District Court appoint an ex officio representative for the defendant for the purpose of serving that decision. 22.  On 20 August 2005 the District Court requested the defendant to correct his appeal against the interim measure of 16 February 2005. He responded on 27 October 2005. 23.  On 2 January 2006 the Regional Court upheld the interim measure. 24.  On 1 June 2006 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it (i) ruled that the defendant was the father of the second applicant; (ii) gave the first applicant custody of the second applicant; (iii) ordered that the defendant contribute to the costs of the second applicant’s maintenance; and (iv) issued an order for costs against him. Both parties appealed, the applicant seeking maintenance in a higher amount.
The appeal is still pending. 25.  On 23 December 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). They supplemented the complaint on 17 February 2003 in that they challenged the length of the above proceedings before the District Court and jointly claimed SKK 1,000,000[4] in compensation for their non‑pecuniary damage. 26.  On 20 March 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible. 27.  On 8 September 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicants’ right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention); ordered that the District Court proceed with the matter expeditiously; awarded the first applicant SKK 50,000[5] and the second applicant SKK 70,000[6] by way of just satisfaction in respect of their non‑pecuniary damage; and ordered the reimbursement of their legal costs.
The Constitutional Court observed that it had jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only the period after 15 February 1993 when the Constitutional Court had been established. Nevertheless, it took into account the state of the proceedings at that time.
The Constitutional Court held that the case was not legally complex. However, the international element and the difficulty of assessing the evidence involved certain complexities. No substantial delays were imputable to the applicants and what was at stake for them called for special diligence. The conduct of the District Court was inefficient and uncoordinated and there were the following periods of inactivity on its part: from 26 August 1993 to 27 September 1995; from 27 September 1995 to 5 February 1998; from 5 February 1998 to 29 April 1999; and from 22 November 2000 to 14 September 2001.