5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Košice.
6.  The applicant, the father of a child, has been involved in domestic litigation concerning numerous claims on upbringing and maintenance of the child since 1993.
7.  The present application concerns three interrelated claims brought before the Čadca District Court on 12 March 2003 and subsequently on 3 July and 16 December 2003. These claims were all registered under the same case file no. P 170/93 and concerned the applicant’s rights of contact with his child and his request for custody of the child. The action of 3 July 2003 related to child maintenance and had been brought by the national authority, acting as a guardian ad litem for the child.
8.  In the course of the proceedings, the District Court examined extensive evidence. This included the assessment of several reports from the appointed guardian ad litem, an opinion from a psychology expert seeking to establish the circumstances of the relationship between the applicant and the child, personal and financial circumstances of the applicant, his medical condition as well as the medical reports of the child.
The District Court held nine hearings on the merits, out of which the applicant attended two. It also decided on an interim measure in relation to the contact between the applicant and the child, which was challenged and quashed on appeal twice.
During the course of the proceeding, the applicant asked for a court fee exemption. He also lodged seven motions, by which he had challenged the judges of the District Court as well as the Regional Court for bias. When he had challenged the judges of the latter court on ground of bias, the Supreme Court dealt with those motions.
9.  The District Court twice ruled on the merits of the case, on 20 August 2008 and 31 March 2011 respectively. This was due to the fact that the judgment was partly upheld and party quashed on appeal on the first occasion. It also stayed the proceedings in respect of the applicant’s right to contact with his child because the child had reached the age of majority in the meantime.
10.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint relying on several Convention as well as Constitution Articles. He challenged among others the length of proceedings held before the District Court.
11.  On 6 October 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint in respect of the length of the proceedings on the ground that the matter at stake was complicated due to the three aforesaid interrelated claims.
The Constitutional Court took into account the sensitive nature of the case and the District Court’s repeated requests for an expert opinion in order to assess the best interest of the child. It also considered the applicant’s behaviour during the proceedings, his seven absences during the nine scheduled hearings, as well as his seven challenges of the domestic courts’ judges for bias, which protracted the proceedings by three years and eight months.
In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court found no unreasonable delays in the District Court’s procedure.
12.  Subsequently, on 21 March 2012, the Žilina Regional Court dealt with the applicant’s second appeal and delivered the judgment on the merits of the case, which became final on 2 April 2012. It partly upheld the District Court’s judgment and partly amended it.
13.  The applicant then lodged an application for reimbursement of a court fee he had paid for one of his challenges of the judge for bias. This motion was dismissed by two levels of jurisdiction and the decision became final on 8 February 2013.