The delay had been caused by the bank crisis of 1998, the suspension of the servicing bank’s licence, and the bailiffs’ mistake.

However, those delays did not add much to the length of the proceedings. 22.

The Government consider that the delay in the proceedings before the municipality was due to the fact that the applicant had not enclosed the complete documentation.

The Government further noted that the delay in payment was due to the difficult economic situation of the coal industry and its restructuring.

Taking into account the number of duties that the Court of Appeal had to accomplish, such delay could not be considered excessive.

Apparently, the reason for the delay was the lack of funds.

However, the applicant’s behaviour was causing delays as he often failed to attend hearings without explanation or justification.

    The Government maintained firstly that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage from the delays in the domestic proceedings.

On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the applicant’s request, the term for lodging an appeal which resulted in delays of about three months. 19.

prior to implementation of this Act “(1) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased by 31 March 2007 (emphasis added) and the party has made a claim for

    The Government acknowledged that the proceedings had to date been subject to a delay and that their length had exceeded what would legitimately be expected.

Although this kind of situation was not mentioned in the Act, it might cause non ‑ pecuniary damage similar to that caused by delays in the actual judicial proceedings.

In March 1999 the High Court rejected the application concerning delay and no order for discovery of the psychiatric records was made because the prosecution undertook to procure them.

without there having been an objective justification for that delay ”. 12.

    On 16 March 2009 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings to the President of the District Court. 10.

They contended that the delay in the proceedings was unjustified, and that it was entirely imputable to the authorities. 14.

The Government further contended that, having regard to the facts of the case and in particular to the applicant’s history, there was no evidence that, had the delays in those proceedings not occurred,

What were the reasons and the legal basis for the alleged delays in the enforcement proceedings? What was the risk for the applicants associated with those delays?

No delays could be imputed to the applicants' conduct. The proceedings had been pending for 12 years without a decision on the merits.