4.  The applicant is a private limited liability company with its registered office in Žilina. 5.  On 1 February 1995 eight persons filed an action with the Žilina District Court. They sued the applicant and the Municipality of Žilina for a sum of money on grounds of unjust enrichment. 6.  On 24 January 1996 the Žilina District Court delivered a judgment. On 20 June 1996 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination to the Žilina District Court. 7.  On 16 December 1998 the case was transferred to the Čadca District Court and on 10 July 2001 to the Martin District Court upon decisions of the Žilina Regional Court as to bias on the part of judges. 8.  On 27 February 2006 the Martin District Court delivered a judgment. The parties appealed and the file was transferred to the Žilina Regional Court on 12 May 2006. 9.  The plaintiffs’ representative lodged their observations on the applicant’s appeal in August 2006. The case file circulated within the Regional Court until 24 January 2008 when a hearing was scheduled for 19 February 2008. The hearing was adjourned upon an objection by the applicant as to bias on the part of judges. 10.  On 31 March 2008 the file was transferred to the Supreme Court for a decision on the objection of bias. On 1 April 2008 the Supreme Court decided not to exclude the challenged judges from hearing and deciding on the case. 11.  On 22 April 2008 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Martin District Court, also because of the latter’s failure to respect the legal opinion of the appellate court given on 20 June 1996. 12.  On 12 May 2008 the file was transferred to the Martin District Court. In August 2008 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were pending. 13.  The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings before the Žilina, Čadca and Martin District Courts to the Constitutional Court. On 18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court (First Chamber) rejected the applicant’s complaint about unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Courts in Žilina and Čadca as being belated (as those courts no longer dealt with the case and the complaints had been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit). 14.  On 4 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Martin District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. 15.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex from a factual point of view. However, the Martin District Court had only assessed the evidence adduced before the District Courts in Žilina and Čadca and the duration of the proceedings could not be explained by the complexity of the case. The applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Martin District Court had failed to proceed in an appropriate manner and it was responsible for delays totalling 43 months. 16.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 60,000 (the equivalent of 1,612 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Martin District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs but did not order it to avoid further delays in the proceedings, as that court had delivered its decision on the merits in the meantime.