Furthermore, it appears that the applicant did not contribute to the delays in the proceedings. 55.

What is to be taken into account is diligence shown by the authorities, any delay attributable to the applicant, and any factors causing delay for which the State cannot be held responsible (see Jablonski

The court accepted that there had been delay, occasioned, in particular, by the application by the PPCS of the incorrect policy.

    The applicant’s claim against the State for non-pecuniary damage owing to the delays in the criminal proceedings 27.

    The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay 35.

    The Court notes certain delays in the bailiff I.M.'

    The applicant maintained that the case was not complex and emphasised that there was a long delay in the proceedings before the Administrative Court. 26.

The resulting delays were not imputable to the parties.

Disclosure carried out properly and timeously ensures that justice is done and prevents unnecessary trials and delay.”

Accordingly, the Court finds that the overall delay imputable to the applicant did not exceed eleven months. 57.

She also asked the court to instruct the lower court to terminate the proceedings without further delay. 54.

It was submitted that the lack of legal representation of both parties contributed to the delay in the proceedings. 58.

It accepts that these delays cannot be imputed to the respondent State. The same can be held with respect to the delays caused by   M. (i)     Divorce proceedings 62.

The applicant had caused some delay by failing to identify clearly the defendants and the land.

    As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court notes that it led to substantial delays in the proceedings.

    The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov   v. Russia , no.

date but only if that delay still continued; what had not been the case in the case under the consideration.

The Constitutional Court ordered that the District Court proceed with the matter without delays and awarded the applicant SKK 20,000 [4] in just satisfaction for his non ‑ pecuniary damage.

As to the applicant's conduct, the Court finds that he did not cause any significant delays.