Criteria of the Constitutional Court when deciding on a constitutional complaint about delays

When assessing a constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings of ordinary courts , the Constitutional Court takes into account the following criteria:

a) the factual and legal complexity of the case on which the court is deciding,

b) the conduct of the party to the proceedings (the party to the dispute)

(c) court procedure.

In relation to the legal and factual complexity of the case, the factual and legal aspects of the dispute are examined in terms of their difficulty, and whether it is a common or a factually and legally difficult dispute. From the point of view of the factual aspects, this may involve assessing whether there are a large number of participants in the proceedings (whether on the plaintiff's or defendant's side), whether it was necessary to take a lot of evidence for the decision (many witnesses, documentary evidence, etc.), whether it was necessary to hire an expert, interpreter, etc. to examine professional issues. In terms of the legal aspects, the complexity of professional legal issues, their scope, etc. may also be taken into account. It may also be necessary to take evidence abroad or to determine the content of foreign law.

The conduct of a party to the dispute is assessed primarily with regard to the person of the complainant, whether his passivity did not hinder the court's proceedings (failure to respond to court summons, failure to pay fees, failure to appear at the hearing if his participation was required), or whether his active conduct did not sabotage the smooth progress of the proceedings (e.g. unfounded complaints, filing an incomplete lawsuit, or other motions and submissions whose errors needed to be corrected, etc.).

The procedure of the court in question is examined from the point of view of the course of the proceedings and also from the point of view of taking measures to prevent or eliminate delays. For example, it may involve providing a substitute judge so that the hearing does not have to be postponed due to the absence of a judge who is unable to work, deciding the case without a hearing, with the judge securing the consent of the parties to discuss the case without a hearing, ordering hearings in a timely manner and preparing for them so that they do not have to be postponed without reason. It may also be a question of the correct selection of an expert, his timely appointment and the timely and correct determination of the questions that the expert is to answer. It is considered that the high workload of a judge due to the number of assigned cases, the lack of judges or other court staff is not a reason to reject a constitutional complaint, because delays can be caused by a judge, but the court (and through the court the state) as such is responsible for the delays and the court is capable and obliged to ensure the smooth handling and decision of the case, because it has the systemic means to do so (changing the schedule of assigned cases, appointing a substitute judge, the possibility of recruiting judges and other staff, or using other organizational or material means, etc.). Finally, the total length of the proceedings is also examined, and if the proceedings are extremely long (in the tens of years), the Constitutional Court does not even have to examine their course individually.

The elimination of delays does not occur by discussing the case, i.e., by holding a hearing, or by other actions of the court during the proceedings (invitation to testify, appointment of an expert, invitation to pay court fees, inspection, etc.). The elimination of delays occurs only with a final court decision, which ends the proceedings. This also means that a party to the proceedings can no longer successfully file a constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings at the moment when the court finally decides on his dispute. Such a constitutional complaint will be rejected, except in the case of a complaint concerning the proceedings for the award of compensation for costs in a specific amount (the amount of the costs of the proceedings is decided only after the final conclusion of the proceedings).