The Court concluded that the first formal response to the registration request of 12 September 2001 was issued only on 27 January 2003, a delay of more than one year and four months.

The Court concluded that the delay in payment imposed an individual and excessive burden on the applicants (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   I.

    Mindful of the subsequent delays caused by the applicant’s actions, as discussed above, the Court finds however that the initial delay of twelve years (1992-2004), for which no justification

The delay in serving had been explained by the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to collect the judgment within the set time-limit.

    The Government argued that the applicant had herself been to blame for the delay in receiving compensation.

The Government had not put forward any convincing explanation for the delays.

Correspondence in those cases (...) shall be sent to the addressee without delay and shall not be censored.”

Poland - 37641/97 Judgment 2.12.2003 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Significant periods of delay despite apparent reasonableness of overall length Extract: “The Court

On 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay.

On 9 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay.

    The Government further observed that during the proceedings there had been no periods of unnecessary delay on the behalf of the domestic authorities.

His actions against the social security authorities in connection with the delays in his pension payments were dismissed by the courts.

As regards the applicant's conduct, it noted that even if the applicant could be considered to be responsible for some of the delays, this could not justify the length of the periods in between individual

The lodging of a complaint about delays shall not be limited by time. 3.

The applicant, in its view, bore entire responsibility for that delay.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 3 avril 2024, la société Périgord Gabarres, représentée par Me Delpy, demande au tribunal, sur le fondement de l'article L. 213-5 du code de

POURSUITE D’UNE MESURE D’HOSPITALISATION COMPLÈTE - DÉLAI DE 6 MOIS ADMISSION A LA DEMANDE DU REPRÉSENTANT DE L’ETAT Article L. 3211-12-1 du code de la santé publique Rendue le 08/10/2025 Morgane LE DELEY

POURSUITE D’UNE MESURE D’HOSPITALISATION COMPLÈTE - DÉLAI DE 6 MOIS ADMISSION A LA DEMANDE DU REPRÉSENTANT DE L’ETAT Article L. 3211-12-1 du code de la santé publique Rendue le 08/10/2025 Morgane LE DELEY

HOSPITALISATION COMPLÈTE - DÉLAI DE 6 MOIS ADMISSION A LA DEMANDE DU REPRÉSENTANT DE L’ETAT Article L. 3211-12-1 du code de la santé publique NON LIEU A STATUER Rendue le 07/10/2025 Morgane LE DELEY