4.  The applicants were clients of a private non-banking investment company, Sun a.s. (“the company”), which was open for investment by the public. 5.  Under various types of private-law contracts, the applicants and more than seven hundred other individuals made financial investments in the company, which failed to meet its contractual obligations. 6.  In December 1999 and subsequently, several individuals lodged criminal complaints against the management of the company about defaults on payments. In a report of 2 June 2000 the police observed, inter alia, that the company's customers were scattered all over the country, and that a relatively high number of criminal complaints could be expected in the matter. 7.  On 27 April 2000 a criminal investigation was opened against Š., the owner and chief executive officer of the company. However, on 18 May 2000 the decision was quashed on appeal due to formal shortcomings and lack of evidence. 8.  Numerous other criminal complaints in the matter were lodged, inter alia, by the applicants and the Supervisory Board and the Board of Directors of the company. They finally resulted in criminal proceedings being taken against Š. (see below). 9.  On 25 April 2002 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed a petition for an insolvency order against the company, on the ground that the value of its estate was not sufficient to cover the costs of the proceedings. 10.  The company was consequently wound up and on 14 February 2005 erased from the Register of Companies, whereby it ceased legally to exist. 11.  In the period between 10 April 2000 and 17 June 2002 four applicants lodged criminal complaints accusing the management of the company of fraud and embezzlement. 12.  On 16 August 2000 the Bratislava V District Office of Investigation took a formal decision under Article 160 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to open criminal proceedings against one or more unknown persons, on suspicion that they had committed the offence of embezzlement within the meaning of Article 248 §§ 1 and 5 of the Criminal Code in connection with the management of the company. 13.  Later in 2000 the investigators obtained information from the Police Criminal Forensics Institute, the Police Financial Intelligence Unit, the tax authorities, the National Property Fund, the Bratislava Stock Exchange, the National Employment Authority, the Financial Market Authority and the Slovak Securities Centre. 14.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants were interviewed by investigators. They lodged specific quantified claims under Article 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for damages in the period between 9 March 2001 and 24 June 2003 (see the appendix). 15.  The applicants appointed representatives from among themselves to act on their behalf. In the subsequent period, through their representatives, they complained on numerous occasions to various governmental institutions and the media about the course of the investigation and especially about undue delays. 16.  From August 2001 to March 2002 the investigators interviewed several aggrieved parties and witnesses and obtained further information concerning the company, from a sworn expert, the Police Financial Intelligence Unit, the tax authorities and the Securities Centre. 17.  On 21 March 2002 the Minister of the Interior ordered the matter to be investigated by a special team. The team was set up and took up the investigation on 1 April 2002. 18.  On 2 May 2002 the Bratislava Regional Office of Investigation ruled that, in view of its scale and importance, that office would be responsible for the conduct of the investigation. 19.  In a letter of 9 May 2002 the Bratislava V District Office of Public Prosecution acknowledged that in the period prior to March 2002 there had been delays in the investigation. 20.  Between April and December 2002 the investigators questioned 373 aggrieved persons, seventeen witnesses, numerous other persons and a sworn expert, obtained information from private companies, the land registry authorities, the tax authorities, the Social Security Administration and the Securities Centre, searched a flat and non-residential premises and took various steps, including involving Interpol, with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of Š., who was suspected of having gone abroad. 21.  On 27 August 2002 the investigators accused Š. of embezzlement and other economic offences in connection with the insolvency of the company. 22.  In October 2002 the investigator applied for a warrant for the arrest of the accused and ordered expert evidence to be taken. An expert report was submitted in January 2003. 23.  On 30 October 2002 the Bratislava V District Court issued an arrest warrant. 24.  In November 2002 the investigator ordered further expert evidence to be taken and obtained information from various sources. 25.  On 5 and 6 February 2003 respectively Š. was arrested and remanded in custody. On 27 February 2003 the Bratislava V District Prosecutor dismissed as unfounded his appeal against the accusations. 26.  Later in 2003 the investigators interrogated Š. 9 times, heard 278 aggrieved parties and thirty-nine witnesses, obtained information from several commercial banks, an airline company, the Securities Centre, the Ministry of Economy and the Financial Police, cross-examined the accused and a witness and ordered further expert evidence to be taken. The police carried out a search of a house and non-residential premises. 27.  On 12 January 2004 the investigation was transferred to the Organised Crime Unit of the Police Corps. 28.  Later in 2004 the investigators cross-examined several witnesses and Š., ordered an examination by a mental health specialist and interviewed eighteen aggrieved persons and three witnesses. In 2005 the investigator interviewed Š., two witnesses and an expert witness and cross-examined Š. and a witness. 29.  On 19 July 2006 the Supreme Court ruled, on application by the Prosecutor General, under Article 47 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that participation of aggrieved parties in the criminal proceedings was not admissible. Although this decision had no impact on the applicants' standing as aggrieved parties in criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 46 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants as a result could no longer exercise their rights as aggrieved parties as stipulated in Article 46 §§ 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court noted that there were as many as 707 aggrieved parties, that they had not appointed a common representative, that their claims and demands differed in many aspects and that the assertion of such claims and demands individually in the criminal proceedings would endanger the main purpose and speedy course of the proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that, as its ruling had an impact on the running of the statute of limitations in respect of civil-law claims for damages, the Prosecutor General was to make it public by appropriate means. The Supreme Court's ruling was announced by the Public Prosecution Service on their official web page on 11 August 2006. 30.  According to the information available, the criminal proceedings are still pending. 31.  On 26 June 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. They complained that the District Office of Investigation and the District Office of Prosecution had violated their right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). 32.  On 23 August 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It observed that the primary aim of criminal proceedings was to detect criminal offences and to punish perpetrators and not to determine aggrieved parties' claims for damages. Aggrieved parties' claims for damages were of a private-law nature and were predominantly to be asserted before the civil courts. The possibility of claiming damages in criminal proceedings was a privilege which did not make the determination of such claims the central issue of the proceedings and was limited by the above main aim of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants, being aggrieved parties in the criminal proceedings, did not enjoy the right to have their claims for damages determined “without unjustified delay” and “within a reasonable time”.