Türkiye 07/09/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 8. 47681/18 Saray v.

The applicant himself was responsible for delays of six months and eight days.

role in the delay was a comparatively minor one.

On 12 September 1996 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the president of the City Court.

Moreover, the Government hold the applicants solely responsible for certain periods of delay and, in particular, the delay between the service of the statement of claim and the fully pleaded amended defence

    Practice of the High Court with respect to delay 23.

These delays cannot, therefore, be imputed to the State. 3.     Conduct of the judicial authorities 35.

    In the present case, the Court observes that the “complaint about delays” was introduced only in July 1999.

le rapport de Mme le conseiller référendaire FERRARI et les conclusions de M. l'avocat général le FOYER de COSTIL ; Vu la requête en rabat d'arrêt présentée le 14 septembre 1995 au nom de : - DELAYE

Have there been any instances of delay in handing the Court’s correspondence to the applicant by the prison authorities?   3.

On several occasions, the applicant submitted petitions to the prison administration, the public prosecutor and the enforcement judge, stating that he had been experiencing prolonged delays in securing

Turkey , in which the State’s failure to compensate inflation losses, resulting from a delay in reimbursing the applicant’s estate, was found to be in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.1.

  25629/94, 27   November 1997 – finding of a violation in respect of a 45-minute delay).

It came to TRL 7,097,276, of which TRL 4,008,146 was interest for delay due up to December 1991.

to a trial without undue delay has been infringed.”

The applicants’ failure to appear on 9 January 1989 did not delay the proceedings for more than three months.

After carefully reviewing the facts and the individual periods of delay encountered, it concluded that there was a delay of ten months, from March 2008 to January 2009, in the holding of the Parole Board

at issue in the present case On 18 September 2003 X instituted proceedings (no. 264/2003) against the State - in the form of an action for civil responsibility of magistrates - complaining about the delay

Conduct of applicant: although applicant may have contributed to some extent to delay – this cannot justify length of proceedings.