there was any inordinate or inexcusable delay in serving summonses on them.

This undoubtedly amounted to an unreasonable delay under Article 6 of the Convention. Moreover, there was no valid reason justifying the delay in paying compensation for the expropriation.

It claimed EUR   415,353 for the alleged delay in civil action no. 4099/2004 and EUR 800,551 for the alleged delay in appeal no. 28/2011.

The court dealt summarily with the issue of delay.

But, one has to see in an individual case what has been the cause of the delay.

    The applicant maintained his complaint concerning the delay in the enforcement of the judgment. 15.

On 13 September 2005, following several more enquiries about a hearing, the applicant complained about delay.

insofar as this delay had exceeded six months.

There was then an 8 month delay before that was produced (delay not of Mr King's making). The appeal was launched on 17 August 1992. Judgment was given on 14 January 1994.

Mme Isabelle Dely, présidente du Tribunal, a exercé les fonctions de Responsable du Centre de recherche et de documentation de la Cour nationale du droit d'asile entre septembre 2015 et septembre 2020

The applicant submitted that his complaint mainly concerned delays in the proceedings up to the Constitutional Court’s judgment.

    The applicant’s previous constitutional complaint of alleged delays and subsequent five constitutional complaints of alleged continuing delays in the insolvency proceedings were unsuccessful

in consultation by a specialist, lack of/delay in medical testing, lack of hip replacement therapy   26/09/2013 – pending More than 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 25 day(s)   15,000   &#

13/ 00086 AFFAIRE : SOCIETE MUTUELLE D'ASSURANCES DU BATIMENT ET DES TRAVAUX PUBLICS DITE SMABTP C/ Compagnie d'assurances GROUPAMA D'OC MJ-iB indemnité d'assurance Grosse délivrée à Maître DELPY

  In fixing this sentence it took into account the considerable delay between the arrest of the applicant and his trial, without establishing, however, who was responsible for this delay.

by the Constitutional Court Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 4 60397/17 Arseven v.

In total, these accounted for approximately nine months of delay.

  In fixing this sentence it took into account the considerable delay between the arrest of the applicant and his trial, without establishing, however, who was responsible for this delay.

Procedural delays alone, therefore, did not constitute grounds for setting the decision aside. – no. III.