4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Rabčice. 5.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant lodged an action for damages with the Bratislava I District Court. She relied on the State Liability Act and argued that the Ministry of Finance and three other public authorities as defendants were liable for the financial loss she had suffered as a result of a failed investment with two private non-banking investment institutions.
Such institutions used to operate in Slovakia in the 1990s soliciting and accepting money from the public on a large scale for the promise of unusually high returns on the basis of various private-law contracts outside the framework of the banking and investment sectors. They eventually collapsed (see, for example, Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, 21 June 2011 and Loveček and Others v. Slovakia, no. 11301/03, 21 December 2010).
The applicant argued that the defendants had failed to exercise their supervisory functions, that they had thereby enabled the investment institutions in question to carry out their illicit activities and that they were accordingly liable for the loss she had suffered. 6.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant several times submitted new evidence, was requested to provide further and better particulars of her claim, did so, and requested that further defendants be admitted to the proceedings. Such requests were determined and the number of the defendants finally stabilised at 8. Their observations in reply were obtained and, in 2011, they had to be asked for fresh observations on one point of procedure as there had been an error in the District Court’s previous summonses. On the procedural level, courts at two levels were involved. 7.  The first hearing on the merits was held on 15 March 2012 and two more followed, after the last of which, on 9 November 2012, the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of three of the defendants and dismissed the action against the others. 8.  The applicant appealed and her appeal is still pending. 9.  On 16 March 2009 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings to the President of the District Court. 10.  In a letter of response of 16 April 2009, the President of the District Court acknowledged that there had been undue delays in the proceedings resulting mainly form objective factors. She apologised to the applicant and informed her that she had instructed the judge to ensure that no more undue delays occur and that she would monitoring the progress of the proceedings. 11.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. She directed the complaint against the District Court and alleged that it had violated her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 12.  On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
The Constitutional Court held that the complaint lodged by the applicant with the President of the District Court had proven to be effective. The President of the District Court had reacted adequately and had adopted necessary measures with a view to ensuring expeditious examination of the applicant’s action.
Consequently, at the time of the introduction of the constitutional complaint, the District Court was proceeding with the case properly.
Should any further delays occur in the proceedings, the applicant was free to raise her complaint in the Constitutional Court anew without first having to do so again with the President of the District Court.