4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Mírov Prison. 5.  On 8 April 2004 the applicant initiated civil proceedings for protection of his personality rights (“the main proceedings”) against the Czech Republic in the person of the Ministry of Justice (no. 37 C 51/2004). On 28 March 2008 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) dismissed the applicant’s action. The Prague High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed an appeal by the applicant on 20 October 2008 and the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law on 15 April 2010. 6.  On 12 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act (Act no. 82/1998) from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings. As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant’s request within the six-month statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action on 18 December 2007 (proceedings no. 17 C 204/2007). 7.  On 18 December 2009 the Prague 2 District Court (obvodní soud) acknowledged that there had been delays in the main proceedings and awarded the applicant 30,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (1,140 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the rest of the claim. 8.  On 15 September 2010 the Prague Municipal Court amended the lower court’s judgment by dismissing the whole financial claim, leaving the rest of the judgment intact. It found that the applicant had not suffered any non-pecuniary damage on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings. 9.  On 30 November 2011 the Supreme Court, upon an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the Municipal Court’s judgment and remitted the case to it. On 11 April 2012 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for financial compensation but acknowledged that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time had been violated in the main proceedings. Given the high number of lawsuits brought by the applicant, the court concluded that the finding of a violation was sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage caused to him. The court also saw no need to award him damages on account of the length of the compensation proceedings, as the applicant had requested, considering that they had not been unreasonably long. 10.  On 12 August 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant, stating, inter alia:
“The Supreme Court pointed out in its previous cassation judgment in this case that, without providing any further reasons, it cannot be concluded that the fact that a plaintiff has initiated a large number of disputes ... means that the presumption of non-pecuniary damage caused by excessively long proceedings has been rebutted.
...
The fact that an injured person has instigated a large number of judicial disputes can have an impact on his approach to a particular set of proceedings; for example, he may fail to respond to the court’s requests on time, pay court fees on time, remedy shortcomings in his submissions on time and such like, thus he may not pay proper attention to the proceedings. Such conduct may show that the subject matter of the proceedings is of lesser importance for the injured person and it may be taken into consideration under the criterion of the injured person’s conduct.... Nonetheless, even if there are no such circumstances on the part of the injured person, it is not possible to wholly ignore the fact that the plaintiff has initiated a large number of judicial disputes. It puts him in a different position as regards the perception of the degree of damage caused by the excessive length of one of the disputes compared to the position of a person participating in only one or only a few judicial proceedings (compare, in similar terms, the European Court of Human Rights inadmissibility decision in the case of Havelka v. the Czech Republic, of 20 September 2011, applications nos. 7332/10, 42666/10 and 61523/10, and the decision of the Supreme Court of 4 June 2013, no. 30 Cdo 1042/2013).
As to the appellant’s complaint that the court of appeal should have taken the length of the compensation proceedings themselves into account when determining redress, it must be admitted that the base amount of compensation can indeed be increased if compensation proceedings are themselves excessively long and a plaintiff requests an increase in compensation on those grounds (part VI. of the Supreme Court’s opinion of 13 April 2011, no. Cpjn 206/2010 ...). However, in its judgment of 14 November 2011, no. 30 Cdo 3340/2011, the Supreme Court added that if in the proceedings concerned the procedure under Article 118 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) has been followed, the application of the possibility to increase compensation is limited by the rules for submitting new facts and modifying the initial action in the proceedings before the court of first instance; the same applies in similar fashion to appeal proceedings (see Article 205a § 1 and Article 2016 § 2 of the CCP). Thus, an injured person has to raise an objection about the length of compensation proceedings pending the effects of concentration in the particular proceedings. In the present case, the appellant raised a claim for compensation for the length of the compensation proceedings only in the course of the proceedings before the appellate court, in a submission of 11 April 2012 (file page 128) ... so it was an inadmissible new claim.” 11.  On 24 April 2014 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed a constitutional complaint (ústavní stížnost) by the applicant. 12.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation (no. 23 C 149/2012) for non-pecuniary damage for the excessive length of the first set of compensation proceedings (no. 17 C 204/2007). He later began proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the second set of compensation proceedings too (no. 22 C 204/2015). 13.  On 19 September 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the Czech Republic–Ministry of the Interior before the Prague 7 District Court under the State Liability Act. He claimed compensation for an allegedly illegal search of his house on 6 March 2001. 14.  On 4 November 2004 he was asked to remedy shortcomings in his action, which he did on 16 November 2004. 15.  On 21 March 2005 the District Court decided the case was not in its jurisdiction and referred it to the Prague 2 District Court. Following an appeal by the applicant, the Prague Municipal Court upheld the jurisdiction decision on 20 December 2005. 16.  On 24 January 2007 the District Court appointed a legal representative for the applicant. On 6 June and 20 September 2007 and 4 January 2008 the applicant supplemented his action. 17.  On 26 March 2008 the District Court asked the Prague 3 District Court to send it the criminal case file concerning the house search at issue. 18.  The District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 21 December 2009 after a hearing on 16 December 2009. 19.  On 26 October 2011 the Prague Municipal Court upheld that decision. 20.  On 27 January 2012 the applicant appealed on points of law. On 7 February 2012 he filed a constitutional complaint, which was rejected as premature by the Constitutional Court on 29 May 2012. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on points of law on 11 November 2015, referring, inter alia, to a decision by the Court on the same matter, which had found the complaint manifestly ill-founded (see Žirovnický v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7022/06, 5 October 2010). 21.  The applicant subsequently renewed his complaint to the Constitutional Court but it was dismissed on 15 March 2016. 22.  On 8 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings (no. 18 C 84/2006). As the Ministry did not deal with his request within the six-month statutory time-limit, on 9 December 2007 he brought a civil action before the Prague 7 District Court seeking CZK 8,315.84 (EUR 318) in compensation. 23.  On 20 January 2012 the District Court dismissed the action, considering that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long. 24.  On 12 December 2012 the Prague Municipal Court upheld the judgment, finding that although the main proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time the applicant could not be awarded compensation because of the lack of significance of the proceedings for him. According to the court, the applicant had abused his right of access to a court by initiating a very large number of legal disputes against the State. 25.  On 18 February 2015 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. It noted that even if the applicant had abused his right of access to a court, unreasonably long proceedings might still cause him damage which had to be compensated for by at least a finding of a violation. 26.  On 14 September 2015 the Municipal Court modified the District Court’s judgment by finding a violation of the applicant’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment. The court refused to deal with a new complaint by the applicant about the length of the compensation proceedings. 27.  On 27 November 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is apparently still under consideration. 28.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation (no. 12 C 301/2011) for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings and then proceedings for compensation for delays in that second case (no. 22 C 141/2015). 29.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Czech Republic–Ministry of the Interior before the Prague 7 District Court, alleging that he had suffered damage in connection with a “terrorist attack” on his family by police officers on 6 March 2001. 30.  On 28 July 2004 the case was referred to the Prague Municipal Court as the court competent to deal with it at the first instance. 31.  After several decisions on exemption from court fees, the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant and several attempts by the court to procure the related criminal case files, a hearing was held on 28 March 2008, following which the Municipal Court dismissed the action. 32.  On 25 November 2008 the Prague High Court upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on 31 August 2010. 33.  On 6 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings, no. 34 C 126/2004. As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant’s request within the statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action before the Prague 2 District Court on 13 December 2007, seeking EUR 4,229.64 in compensation. 34.  On 18 March 2010 the District Court dismissed his action, acknowledging that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long, but seeing no necessity to award him financial compensation. 35.  On 16 December 2010 the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment, finding it non-reviewable for lack of reasoning, and remitted the case to the District Court. In a judgment of 21 March 2012, the District Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment and dismissed the action regarding financial compensation. According to the court, the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress. It found that awarding him financial compensation would be against good morals, given the circumstances of the case, namely the applicant’s conduct in the main proceedings, the conduct of the courts, the importance of the subject matter of the proceedings for the applicant as well as his character, his relation towards the State and society and his lack of respect for the rights of others. 36.  On 6 December 2012 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment. 37.  On 29 September 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. A subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court on 19 February 2015. 38.  Following a plea of nullity by the applicant, the Municipal Court on 10 April 2015 quashed its judgment of 6 December 2012 on the grounds that the applicant had not been able to attend a hearing at the court. 39.  On 19 November 2015 the Municipal Court issued a new judgment, modifying the District Court’s judgment by awarding the applicant CZK 32,400 (EUR 1,200). It found that the length of the compensation proceedings meant that a mere finding of a violation of his rights no longer constituted adequate redress. Having regard to the overall length of the main proceedings, the Municipal Court determined the sum to be awarded to the applicant (CZK 108,000 – EUR 4,000) and then adjusted it with regard to the length of the compensation proceedings (+20%), procedural difficulties in the main proceedings (-30%) and the importance of what had been at stake for him (-40%). 40.  It appears that the compensation proceedings are still ongoing. 41.  The applicant instituted a further two sets of proceedings related to the compensation claim: one to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage for delays in the initial compensation proceedings (no. 23 C 163/2012) and one for compensation for the excessive length of that second set of compensation proceedings (no. 29 C 215/2015). 42.  On 15 October 2004 the applicant brought an administrative action against the Ministry of Justice before the Prague Municipal Court, seeking the annulment of Ministry of Justice Decree no. 345/1999 on the rules for imprisonment (vyhláška Ministerstva spravedlnosti, kterou se vydává řád výkonu trestu odnětí svobody) and the internal rules of Plzeň Prison. 43.  On 11 March 2005 the Municipal Court rejected his action for lack of competence. 44.  Following a cassation complaint (kasační stížnost) by the applicant, the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) quashed the judgment on 20 September 2006 and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. It found that the applicant’s action should have been dismissed (zamítnuta) rather than rejected (odmítnuta). 45.  After several decisions on the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant in 2007, the Municipal Court dismissed the action on 30 September 2008. 46.  On 5 March 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant. 47.  On 10 October 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings (no. 5 Ca 176/2004, later no. 5 Ca 329/2006). As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant’s request within the statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action before the Prague 2 District Court on 10 April 2008, seeking EUR 3,487.77 in compensation. 48.  On 11 May 2009 the District Court dismissed the action, considering that the overall length of the proceedings at issue had not been unreasonable despite one particular delay, particularly because the applicant had in fact known the result of the proceedings after the Supreme Administrative Court’s first judgment of September 2006. 49.  On 17 February 2010 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment, holding that a finding of a violation of the applicant’s rights would be sufficient compensation for the one delay in the main proceedings. 50.  On 22 November 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court, stating that the finding of a violation should have been set out in the operative part of the judgment. 51.  In a judgment of 18 April 2012 the Municipal Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to have his case heard without unnecessary delays in the operative part of the judgment. It found that the length of the main proceedings had been unreasonable, given that the case had not been complex. However, it found that the finding of a violation would provide adequate redress, given the lack of importance of what was at stake for the applicant and the fact that he must have known the result of the proceedings as soon as the Supreme Administrative Court had issued its first judgment. The court considered the finding of a violation to be adequate redress, even taking into account the length of the compensation proceedings themselves. 52.  On 29 November 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. On 29 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded. 53.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings (no. 15 C 244/2012) for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings. He later made a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the excessive length of the latter compensation proceedings too (no. 17 C 146/2015). 54.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant brought an administrative action against the Prison Service (vězeňská služba) and the Ministry of Justice, challenging decisions on a disciplinary penalty (a reprimand) that had been imposed on him and the failure of the Ministry of Justice to decide on a complaint by him about a violation of regulations by Prison Service staff. 55.  After exempting the applicant from court fees, appointing a lawyer to represent him and seeking necessary clarification of the action, on 19 October 2006 the Prague Municipal Court found the action in respect of the disciplinary decisions inadmissible, severing the part of the action concerning the Ministry of Justice’s alleged failure to act. 56.  On 10 May 2007 the Municipal Court dismissed the latter part of the action, finding that the Ministry had not been obliged to deal with the applicant’s complaint in administrative proceedings. 57.  On 31 January 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant. On 21 May 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded. 58.  On 30 October 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings (no. 10 Ca 10/2005). As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant’s request within the statutory time-limit, he brought a civil action before the Prague 2 District Court on 6 May 2008, seeking EUR 3,412.69 in compensation. 59.  On 11 May 2009 the District Court dismissed the action, finding that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long. 60.  On 6 January 2010 the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court since it had failed to also consider proceedings no. 10 Ca 400/2006. 61.  On 14 June 2010 the District Court again dismissed the action, finding that the main proceedings, nos. 10 Ca 10/2005 and 10 Ca 400/2006, had not been unreasonably long. 62.  On 19 January 2011 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment. Although, contrary to the District Court, it considered that the main proceeding had been unreasonably long, it held that finding a violation was sufficient redress. 63.  On 30 January 2013 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. The latter court on 17 June 2013 modified the District Court’s judgment by setting out a violation of the applicant’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment. It did not find that the length of the compensation proceedings had been unreasonable. 64.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is apparently still ongoing. 65.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated two other cases for compensation for non-pecuniary damage from delayed proceedings: one related to delays in the initial compensation proceedings (no. 15 C 139/2012) and one related to delays in that further compensation proceedings (no. 14 C 154/2015). 66.  On 13 December 2007 the applicant sent a request for compensation of CZK 300,000 (EUR 11,430) under the State Liability Act to the Ministry of the Interior. He stated that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of irregular official conduct by police officers who, on 27 June 2007, had taken a DNA sample by way of a cheek swab, without authority to do so and under the threat of force. 67.  On 7 January 2008 the Ministry rejected the request. On 31 January 2008 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of the Interior before the Prague 7 District Court. 68.  On 4 December 2008 the District Court rejected the action as time-barred. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 5 August 2009 the Prague Municipal Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court, finding an erroneous assessment of the statutory limitation period. 69.  On 23 March 2010 the District Court delivered a new judgment, dismissing the action for compensation. It admitted that there had been irregularities in the actions of the police officers when taking the applicant’s DNA samples, but found that he had not suffered any damage. 70.  On 27 October 2010 the Municipal Court upheld the judgment, although with different reasoning. It considered that the finding of a violation was adequate redress for the damage caused to the applicant. 71.  On 28 February 2013 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court. It stated that the Municipal Court “should not overlook” the Supreme Court’s case-law regarding the statutory limitation of a claim. Consequently, on 20 November 2013 the Municipal Court delivered a new judgment, dismissing the applicant’s action as time-barred. 72.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 13 November 2014 the Supreme Court discontinued proceedings on that appeal as the applicant’s lawyer had failed to submit it properly within the statutory time-limit. 73.  On 19 October 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint by the applicant on the grounds that he was not represented by a lawyer. It also observed that the applicant did not want to pursue the complaint. 74.  On 23 December 2011 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings no. 10 C 49/2008. 75.  On 10 May 2012 the Ministry rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no delays in the main proceedings and considering their overall length as reasonable. On 30 May 2012 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry, seeking EUR 4,549.14 in compensation. 76.  After several attempts by the court to procure the relevant case file (no. 10 C 49/2008), a hearing was held on 22 September 2015. The District Court dismissed the action on the same day, finding that the length of the main proceedings had been reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 77.  According to the Government, the applicant filed an appeal on 6 November 2015, which is apparently still ongoing. 78.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings (no. 19 C 149/2015). 79.  On 7 November 2006 the applicant brought an action for protection of his personality rights against a newspaper publisher and the Czech Republic–Ministry of Justice. 80.  After an amendment of the action and several decisions on exempting the applicant from court fees, on 8 December 2008 the Prague Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against the Czech Republic. 81.  On 24 March 2009 the Municipal Court dismissed the action. 82.  On 10 November 2009 the Prague High Court modified the judgment, awarding the applicant CZK 100,000 (EUR 3,920). 83.  On 22 December 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the High Court, which upheld the Municipal Court’s judgment on 15 May 2012. 84.  On 6 August 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is apparently still under consideration. 85.  On 30 August 2012 the applicant lodged a plea of nullity against the High Court’s judgment, asserting that he had not been able to attend a hearing. Apparently, those proceedings are still ongoing. 86.  On 14 February 2012 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings. 87.  On 20 August 2012 the Ministry rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no delays in the main proceedings. On 23 August 2012 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry, seeking EUR 5,774.37 in compensation. 88.  On 18 January 2013 the Prague 2 District Court awarded the applicant CZK 54,250 (EUR 2,120) and dismissed the rest of the action. It considered that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long, taking into consideration that they had concerned the applicant’s personality rights. 89.  On 1 October 2013 the Prague Municipal Court modified the judgment by finding a violation of the applicant’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time but dismissing his claim for financial compensation. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had brought a number of actions, overloading the court system in the Czech Republic by such actions, the court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress for non-pecuniary damage. 90.  On 20 August 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law. It emphasised that if a plaintiff initiated a large number of legal cases then the strength of his feelings towards the damage caused by the unreasonable length of one of those sets of proceedings was different to someone who had participated in only one or a few sets of proceedings. 91.  The Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant as manifestly ill-founded on 18 December 2014.