4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. 5.  In 1993 the applicant and his wife brought proceedings for determination of ownership in respect of a plot of land. 6.  On 18 April 1996 the District Court dismissed the action and, on 19 June 1997, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the judgment on appeal (odvolanie). 7.  On 20 October 1997 the applicant and his wife appealed on points of law (dovolanie). In the course of the proceedings on this appeal procedural matters such as, for instance, the court fees and legal aid, were determined repeatedly at all levels of jurisdiction. The appeal on points of law concerning the merits of the case is still pending. 8.  On 28 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He complained of unjustified delays in the proceedings on the appeal on points of law and requested a legal-aid lawyer. The Constitutional Court dismissed the latter request on 30 June 2004, finding that, in so far as the applicant had substantiated his financial situation, there was no ground for granting it. 9.  On 24 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory requirement to have legal representation. 10.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking modification of a certificate of employment. He argued that the period of his employment was in reality one day longer than as shown in the certificate. 11. The action was dismissed by the District Court on 18 February 1999 and, on appeal, by the Prešov Regional Court on 3 December 1999. 12.  On 28 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the judgment of 3 December 1999 on an appeal by the applicant on points of law and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for a new determination of the appeal against the judgment of 18 February 1999. 13.  On 25 November 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 February 1999. The applicant appealed again on points of law. 14.  On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible since it met none of the existing statutory admissibility criteria. 15.  On 23 May 1997 the applicant brought an action against his landlord, a housing co-operative, in the District Court. He first claimed that his rent should be reduced and later modified the claim in that he reclaimed a part of the rent paid. A further attempt by the applicant to modify the claim was declared inadmissible. 16.  On 2 October 2001 the District Court granted the action by ordering the defendant to pay an amount of money to the applicant. The applicant appealed, arguing that the District Court had overlooked the modification of his claim. 17.  On 28 February 2002 the Prešov Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the applicant lacked grounds for appeal, since his claim had been granted in full. The applicant appealed on points of law. 18.  On 24 January 2005 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings on the appeal on points of law on the ground that, despite a previous request and warning, the applicant had failed to bring it in line with the applicable procedural requirements. 19.  On 15 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings and requested a legal-aid lawyer. The Constitutional Court dismissed the legal-aid request, finding that the applicant was not eligible, in view of his material situation, which was well known to the Constitutional Court in connection with the applicant's other submissions to the Constitutional Court. 20.  On 24 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had no legal representation. 21.  On 18 May 1998 the applicant brought an action against the State, in the person of the Ministry of Justice. He argued that the Ministry had erroneously charged him an administrative fee for an administrative complaint in a previous, unrelated matter and sought damages. 22.  The action was dismissed by the District Court on 4 August 1999 and, on appeal, by the Prešov Regional Court on 27 March 2000. 23.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In the course of the proceedings on this appeal, procedural matters such as the court fees, legal aid and impartiality of judges were determined repeatedly and at all levels of jurisdiction. The appeal on points of law as regards the merits of the case is still pending. 24.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of the length of the proceedings and then requested a legal-aid lawyer. 25.  The Constitutional Court examined the applicant's financial situation, taking into account, in particular, the amount of social benefits the applicant and his wife were receiving and the amount of just satisfaction the applicant had been awarded recently on three unrelated constitutional complaints. The Constitutional Court concluded, on 30 June 2004, that the granting of legal aid to the applicant was not justified. 26.  On 10 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible on the ground that he had no legal representation. 27.  On 1 October 1997 the applicant and his wife filed a civil action seeking the division and dissolution of the co-ownership of a plot of land. 28.  On 24 April 2003 the Bardejov District Court granted the claim and the judgment became final and binding on 11 June 2003. 29.  On 11 March 1992 the applicant sent a letter to the Svidník State Notary requesting that the estate of his late mother be determined. He made a similar submission to the District Court on 9 March 1993, following which, on 28 May 1993, the District Court opened the inheritance proceedings and appointed a notary public to deal with the case. 30.  Between 8 August 1993 and 23 January 2001 the notary held 12 hearings. A hearing that was held on 3 October 1995 was adjourned at the applicant's request with a view to settling the estate by agreement of the prospective heirs. The hearing held on 23 July 1996 was adjourned in order to examine the applicant's claim that he had changed his name. 31.  The applicant failed to appear at six of the above hearings. He excused himself for not being able to attend the hearing of 11 March 1996 one day before that hearing, on account of a clash of scheduled court appearances. Three days before the hearing listed for 9 November 1998 the applicant submitted that he could not appear for health reasons. The applicant also apologised for not being able to attend the hearings of 22 November 1999 and 6 March 2000 three days before those hearings. 32.  In the meantime, on 4 January 1994, the notary requested that the applicant submit documentary evidence, which the applicant did only on 4 November 1994, after having been reminded three times. 33.  In the course of 1995 the notary obtained several pieces of documentary evidence defining the extent of the estate. 34.  On 7 February 2001 the notary held another hearing, following which, on the same day, he determined the case by ruling that the estate passed to the applicant and issuing an order for costs against him. The decision was upheld by the District Court on 9 April 2001 and on appeal by the applicant by the Prešov Regional Court on 26 July 2001. 35.  The applicant subsequently lodged an application with the courts for enforcement of the inheritance decision of 7 February 2001. He sought an order requiring the Land Register Administration to register his title to the inherited property. The application was examined twice, at two levels of jurisdiction, and the judicial proceedings in respect of it were finally discontinued, in 2004, on the ground that the enforcement of the decision fell outside the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The application was consequently transmitted to the Svidník Land Register Administration which was the body which should deal with it. The “enforcement” appears to be still pending there and questions such as, for example, identification of the property under a new referencing system, are being determined. 36.  On 11 May 1993 the applicant brought an action for damages in the Bardejov District Court. It was dismissed by the District Court on 20 January 1994 and, on appeal, by the Košice Regional Court on 26 May 1995. 37.  On 19 January 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court's judgment. 38.  On 16 September 1996 the District Court instructed the applicant to bring his appeal in line with the applicable procedural requirements and to pay the court fees. The applicant replied on 25 September 1996 by asking for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees. 39.  On 2 March, 2 June and 15 October 1997 the District Court repeatedly requested that the applicant make a declaration in respect of his financial standing, with a view to determining the question of the court fees. In the absence of a relevant response, the District Court finally established the applicant's standing on the basis of the information which the applicant had submitted in the context of other proceedings. 40.  On 23 February 1999 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fees and appointed him a legal-aid lawyer. 41.  On 9 December 1999 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, as having been lodged after the expiry of the statutory one-month time-limit. 42.  On 14 February 1991 the applicant and his wife brought an action against an individual in the District Court for protection of their ownership rights in respect of two plots of land. In the course of the proceedings they identified further defendants and extended the action by seeking protection in respect of another plot and claiming that the defendants should be obliged to remove rubbish from the plots in question. 43.  On 31 October 1996 the District Court ordered the defendants to refrain from interfering with the plaintiffs' ownership rights in respect of the first two plots and decided that the remaining claim would be dealt with in a separate set of proceedings (see paragraph 47 below). 44.  On 4 March 1998 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 31 October 1996 on appeal. It thus became final on 21 August 1998. 45.  In 1998 the applicant and his wife requested that the District Court enforce its judgment of 31 October 1996. 46.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings a fine was imposed on the defendants for their failure to abide by the above final judgment and the fine was upheld on appeal. The applicant then requested, numerous times, but unsuccessfully, that further fines be imposed. 47.  As regards the claim concerning the third plot, which the District Court decided to determine in a separate set of proceedings (see paragraph 43 above), four hearings were held between 4 February and 18 May 1999. Three of them were adjourned owing to the absence of the defendants' representative, one in order for the parties to submit evidence. 48.  On 9 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it ordered the defendants to refrain from interfering with the plaintiffs' ownership rights. The court further decided to deal with the remaining claim concerning the prohibition on entering the third plot and the removal of rubbish; in yet another separate set of proceedings. The applicant and his wife appealed. 49.  In 1999 the applicant and his wife requested protection of their rights by way of an interim measure. The request was dismissed on 7 April 2000 and, on appeal, on 19 September 2001. 50.  On 19 April 2004 the Regional Court quashed the injunction of 9 June 1999 and remitted this matter to the District Court for reconsideration. 51.  On 8 August 2004 the applicant challenged the District Court's judge dealing with the case for bias, on the ground that he was responsible for unjustified delays. On 8 September 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the challenge. 52.  On 10 December 2004 the defendants submitted a contract to the court under which they had sold their plots to third persons. The District Court adjourned the case and invited the plaintiffs to confirm whether they wished to maintain their claim in these circumstances. 53.  On 28 December 2004 the applicant informed the court that the plaintiffs maintained their claim. The proceedings are still pending. 54.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He directed the complaint both against the District Court and the Regional Court and challenged unjustified delays in the proceedings files, nos. 7C 107/91 and 4C 1313/98. 55.  On 10 October 2004 the applicant supplemented his complaint in that he also claimed a violation of his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to enjoy his possessions peacefully, owing to the length of the proceedings. 56.  On 28 October 2004 the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to specify his complaint in so far as it was directed against the Regional Court. The applicant failed to do so. 57.  On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint of the length of the proceedings, in so far as it concerned the District Court, and inadmissible as being unsubstantiated, in so far as it concerned the Regional Court. It also found inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 58.  On 15 March 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and ordered it to proceed with the case expeditiously. The Constitutional Court found that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 16 November 1995 to 22 July 1996 (a total of nine months) and that there had been several formal errors on the part of the District Court, which had contributed to the total length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court also found that the applicant's behaviour had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings, as he had failed to appear at three hearings, had modified his claim several times and had challenged the judge twice (in 1992 and in 2004 respectively). It therefore decided not to award the applicant any just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 59.  On 22 December 1995 the applicant's housing co-operative brought an action against him and his wife claiming arrears of rent. 60.  On 14 April 1999 the District Court discontinued the proceedings as the plaintiff had withdrawn the action. The Prešov Regional Court upheld the decision on 30 November 1999 on the applicant's appeal. 61.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and requested a legal-aid lawyer. The request was dismissed with reference to the applicant's financial situation. 62.  On 25 May 2005 the Supreme Court declared the applicant's appeal on points of law inadmissible on the ground that he had no legal representation. 63.  On 26 March 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Court in connection with the processing of his appeal on points of law. 64.  On 5 May 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed, firstly, that the complaint was directed solely against the proceedings before the District Court, which concerned the appeal on points of law. It further observed that, in the circumstances, the applicant's appeal on points of law had no prospect of success and was bound to fail. Finally, the Constitutional Court observed that burdening the courts with inadmissible and unmeritorious appeals, as in the applicant's case, prevented due administration of justice. In view of these considerations the Constitutional Court concluded that, at the time of its assessment, there was no appearance of a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. 65.  On 5 March 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against his housing co-operative, claiming that the defendant's rent assessment should be declared null and void. 66.  In response to the District Court's request to pay the court fees, the applicant asked for an exemption from the obligation to do so. Having examined the applicant's financial situation, the District Court rejected the request and discontinued the proceedings on the merits, on 1 June 2001. 67.  On 14 June 2001 the applicant paid the court fees and the District Court resumed the proceedings. 68.  On 22 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed. 69.  On 16 September 2004 the District Court discontinued the appellate proceedings as the applicant had failed to pay the court fees for the appeal. The decision became final on 27 October 2004. 70.  On 9 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging unjustified delays in the action of 2001. 71.  On 14 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It held that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 17 July 2001 to 13 March 2002 (a total of eight months) and also from 11 April 2002 to 10 November 2003 (a total of seventeen months). It awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) by way of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered reimbursement of his legal costs. 72.  On 10 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against his housing co-operative. He principally sought an order against the defendant to sell and transfer the flat in which the applicant was living to him, under special legislation of 1991. The applicant also sought universal settlement in respect of all outstanding pecuniary and non‑pecuniary claims between himself and the defendant. 73.  On 28 January 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for the transfer of the flat and discontinued the proceedings concerning the settlement, as the applicant had failed to specify this part of his claim despite repeated requests. The applicant appealed. 74.  On 14 February 2000 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment in so far as it concerned the discontinuation of the proceedings and quashed it in so far as it concerned the dismissal of the principal claim. The latter claim was remitted to the District Court for reconsideration. 75.  In the course of the subsequent proceedings various procedural issues such as the court fees and legal aid were examined numerous times at all levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings are still pending. 76.  On 3 August 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the action of 1996 and requested a legal-aid lawyer. 77.  On 10 September and 10 November 2004, respectively, the Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant's legal-aid request and declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that he had no legal representation. 78.  On 3 February 1999 the applicant sued the National Employment Authority before the District Court for an amount of money. The District Court dismissed the claim on 9 September 1999. The applicant appealed and on 10 April 2000 the Prešov Regional Court declared his appeal inadmissible as being lodged out of time. 79.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court's decision. The Bardejov District Court, which dealt with the appeal on points of law prior to its submission to the Supreme Court, invited the applicant to rectify shortcomings in the appeal and to submit a power of attorney. The applicant requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees and asked for a legal-aid lawyer. His requests were rejected by the courts at two instances, with reference to the applicant's financial situation. 80.  On 2 September 2004 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings, holding that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory requirement to have legal representation. 81.  In November 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Court in respect of his appeal on points of law of 7 June 2000. 82.  On 14 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant's constitutional right to have the case decided without unjustified delays. The Constitutional Court observed that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 27 July 2001 until 20 September 2002 (a total of thirteen months) and from 4 November 2002 until 7 January 2004 (a total of fourteen months). The Constitutional Court also found that the applicant's behaviour had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings, as he had repeatedly sent incomplete applications to the court and the court had had to invite him to rectify the shortcomings in them. It therefore decided not to award the applicant any just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court ordered reimbursement of the applicant's legal costs.