5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Bytča. 6.  On 22 April 1992 the applicant and another individual brought an action against twenty-four other individuals in the Žilina District Court. They sought a ruling declaring them to be the owners of agricultural land in Štiavnik. 7.  On 25 May and 19 August 1992 the District Court requested the plaintiffs to provide further information, which they did on 9 June and 27 August 1992, respectively. 8.  On 29 September 1992 the plaintiffs withdrew the action in respect of five defendants. 9.  On 2 February 1993 the District Court held a hearing. 10.  In March 1993 the plaintiffs appointed a new lawyer who withdrew the action in respect of three further defendants and identified one new defendant. 11.  On 12 August 1993 the District Court approved the withdrawal of the action against several defendants and the extension of the action to include a new defendant. 12.  On 8 November 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which twelve of the defendants failed to appear. The plaintiffs modified their statement of claim and extended the action to include another individual. The hearing was adjourned with a view to hearing the absent defendants and obtaining further information. 13.  In November 1993 and March 1994 the plaintiffs submitted further information. 14.  On 1 and 11 March 1994 three defendants were heard through the intermediary of a court in the judicial district where they lived. 15.  In June, October and November 1994 the District Court requested an advance on the costs of the inspection of the property and further information. 16.  On 8 December 1994 the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that she was unable to obtain a document that it had requested. 17.  In October 1995 the District Court requested that another defendant be heard thought the intermediary of the court in the judicial district where she lived. The minutes of the hearing were filed on 15 January 1996. 18.  On 15 May 1996 the District Court held a hearing at which it was learnt that one of the defendants had died. 19.  In May, June and November 1996 the District Court requested the plaintiffs on three occasions to clarify who the actual defendants were. Their lawyer applied twice for an extension of the time-limit for replying. 20.  On 21 January 1997 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to respond to the court’s requests for information. On 12 March 1997 the plaintiffs appealed. They were subsequently requested on two occasions to submit the reasons for their appeal. 21.  On 5 September 1997 the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that the applicant’s co-plaintiff had died. 22.  On 16 October 1997 the plaintiffs submitted the reasons for the appeal. 23.  On 21 November 1997 the District Court sought the defendants’ observations in reply to the appeal. 24.  In February and May 1998 the District Court requested the death certificate of the applicant’s co-plaintiff and invited the son of the deceased co-plaintiff to indicate whether he wished to continue the action in her stead. He responded in the affirmative. 25.  In September 1998 the plaintiffs informed the court that the identification of the land in dispute had changed following the change in the real property referencing system. 26.  On 22 August 2000 the District Court quashed its own decision to discontinue the proceedings and resumed them. 27.  On 3 October 2000 the District Court held a hearing. 28.  On 22 November 2000 and 24 April 2001 the District Court requested the plaintiffs, respectively, to identify the defendants in view of the new identification of the land and to submit, within three months, a fresh surveyor’s plan concerning the land. 29.  The plaintiffs changed legal representation. On 28 August 2001 their newly appointed lawyer asked for a new time-limit for submitting the surveyor’s plan. 30.  In the subsequent period the plaintiffs encountered difficulties in finding a surveyor willing to draw up a plan of the property and they were asked to clarify misgivings as to their legal representation. 31.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant’s lawyer submitted the surveyor’s plan. 32.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant reformulated the action in that she sought a ruling declaring her to be the sole owner of the land. 33.  In October 2004 the case was assigned to a new judge. 34.  In August and September 2005 the file was examined in the context of proceedings before the Constitutional Court. 35.  On 30 September 2005 the District Court re-submitted the file to the Regional Court in Žilina for a decision on the applicant’s appeal against the decision to discontinue the proceedings delivered on 21 January 1997. 36.  On 30 May 2006 the President of the Regional Court reminded the presiding judge of the need to proceed with the case speedily in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s order (see below). 37.  On 2 June 2006 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court after it had established that the latter had itself quashed the decision in issue on 22 August 2000. 38.  Between January and April 2007 the District Court established relevant facts and made inquiries concerning the parties and their representatives. On 29 May 2007 it issued a decision concerning the representation of two defendants. 39.  On 10 August 2007 the District Court asked the applicant to submit further information in respect of her earlier requests for modification of her action. It also asked several defendants for comments on the applicant’s proposal to withdraw the action. 40.  The proceedings are pending. 41.  On 6 December 2002 the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. She asserted that there had been a violation of her right to a hearing without unjustified delay (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and claimed 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in damages. 42.  On 2 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Žilina had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay, ordered acceleration of the proceedings and awarded the applicant SKK 20,000[1] by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of her legal costs. It found that the subject-matter of the proceedings was complex owing to the number of defendants, which moreover had changed in the course of the proceedings, and the change in the land referencing system. The applicant had caused some delay by failing to identify clearly the defendants and the land. The District Court had been inactive without justification for some 27 months between 13 May 1998 and 22 August 2000.
b)  Complaint of 2005 43.  On 16 June 2005 the applicant filed a fresh constitutional complaint based on the recurring unjustified delays in the proceedings. She claimed SKK 600,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 44.  On 30 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period after its judgment of 2 April 2003, there had been a further violation by the District Court in Žilina of the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered acceleration of the proceedings and awarded the applicant SKK 50,000[2] by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of her legal costs. 45.  The Constitutional Court found that in the relevant period the subject‑matter of the proceedings was of no particular legal complexity. Even assuming that the case was to some extent complex on its facts, this provided no justification for the length of the proceedings. No delays could be imputed to the applicant. As for the conduct of the proceedings, the District Court had acted inefficiently throughout the relevant period. Reference was made also to the overall length of the proceedings which had exceeded 13 years.