5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bílovice nad Svitavou (the Czech Republic). 6.  On 30 December 1992 the applicant’s legal predecessor and two others applied to the Bratislava Land Office for the restitution of some plots of land under the Land Ownership Act of 1991. The date on which the applicant subsequently became a party to the proceedings is not specified. 7.  On 23 June 1997 the Land Office issued a decision approving an agreement whereby the proceedings would end in relation to part of the property but continue in relation to the remainder. 8.  By a decision of the Land Office of 17 May 1999, the proceedings in respect of another part of the property ended. However, on 23 May 2003 the relevant part of the proceedings was reopened. 9.  On 12 July 2013 the Land Office stayed the restitution proceedings on the grounds that the parties had failed to furnish it with their consent to process, in the course of the proceedings, their personal data. 10.  On 11 September 2015 the Land Office dismissed part of what was left of the applicant’s claim. 11.  On 19 October 2015 the Land Office stayed the examination of the remainder of the claim, inviting a number of institutions to submit relevant documentation, which they did by the end of 2015. 12.  The remainder of the applicant’s claim is still pending. 13.  Following repeated requests for acceleration of the proceedings and complaints, on 18 June 2011 the Bratislava Regional Land Office acknowledged that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Land Office. 14.  On 20 December 2011 the applicant brought an action in the Bratislava Regional Court for acceleration of the proceedings under Article 250t § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”). 15.  On 19 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed the action on the grounds that the Land Office was short of staff and overburdened with complex and time-consuming restitution claims. It also noted that the Land Office had maintained active correspondence with the applicant and had therefore not caused any undue delays. 16.  The decision of 19 April 2012 was quashed by the Constitutional Court following the applicant’s constitutional complaint (see paragraph 22 below). This led to re-examination of the case by the Regional Court, which decided on 11 April 2013 to allow the action and to order the Land Office to decide on the applicant’s claim within sixty days. 17.  On 12 November 2013, in response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Bratislava II District Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) informed him that the PPS had reprimanded the Land Office for unjustified delays in the restitution proceedings. 18.  On 21 August 2014 the applicant lodged a fresh action with the Regional Court under Article 250t § 1 of the CCP, arguing that the Land Office had failed to abide by the order of 11 April 2013. 19.  On 27 May 2015 the Regional Court allowed the action, issuing a fresh order to the Land Office to decide on the matter within three months. At the same time, it fined it 1,000 euros (EUR) payable to the account of the Regional Court. 20.  On 4 July 2012 the applicant lodged two constitutional complaints. 21.  The first complaint was directed against the Land Office, in particular at the length of the proceedings on his restitution claim before it.
On 23 August 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected that complaint for lack of jurisdiction to examine it.
The Constitutional Court noted that under Article 250t § 1 of the CCP examination of delays in proceedings before administrative authorities fell within the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals, which excluded the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, as the administrative proceedings were still pending, the applicant should have lodged a fresh complaint about the alleged inactivity of the Land Office with the Regional Court. Even though the applicant had already been unsuccessful in using such a remedy, the Regional Court continued to have jurisdiction over actions of that type. 22.  The second complaint was directed against the Regional Court. The applicant contested, inter alia, the fairness of the proceedings leading to its decision of 19 April 2012 (see paragraph 15 above).
In a constitutional judgment of 16 January 2013, the Constitutional Court allowed the relevant part of the applicant’s complaint and found a violation of his right to a fair hearing. It held, in particular, that the Regional Court had failed to take account of relevant aspects of the case and to give adequate reasoning in respect of them. Accordingly, it quashed the Regional Court’s decision of 19 April 2012 and remitted the applicant’s action of 20 December 2011 to the Regional Court for fresh examination. Moreover, it awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.