ÚS 145/02 the Constitutional Court examined a complaint by an individual under Article 127 of the Constitution of delays in proceedings in his civil action of 1995.

All subsequent delays, including the delay caused by the adjournment of 24 June 1992, must be attributed to the failure of the applicant to indicate one single address for the purposes of notification

A decision has then to be taken without undue delay.

APPELANT Non comparant, ni représenté ET : Maître [C] [Z], demeurant [Adresse 2] INTIME Comparant L'affaire a été plaidée à l'audience du 10 novembre 2022 devant Nathalie DELPEY-CORBAUX

DEUX MILLE VINGT-CINQ Numéro d'inscription au répertoire général : 2024F2972 Références : La SAS EOLE - 2024RJ207 DEMANDEUR (S) : Madame [E] [Adresse 1] En personne DEBITEUR : La SAS EOLE LE DELPHES

    Relevant domestic law and practice Article 48 (2) of the Constitution provides, inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay.

On 4 May 1998 the applicant complained to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor ( Riigiprokuratuur ) about the delay in examining his case.

The delay in the proceedings from December 1997 to March 1998 was thus attributable to the applicant.

On 30 July 2008 the Prague 2 District Court dismissed the action holding that the proceedings on merits had been carried out smoothly without delays.

The Constitutional Court found no particular delays in the proceedings which should be imputed to the applicant.

    Complaint about delays 19.

    The applicant alleged that a delay in releasing him from prison had given rise to a violation of Article 5. 4.

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

The Government admitted that the proceedings had suffered from certain delays, but were of the opinion that these delays had not been caused by the conduct of the State authorities involved in the applicant's

   General Scheme of the European Convention on Human Rights (Compensation for Delays in Court Proceedings) Bill 2018 56 .

Accordingly, it remained to be determined whether the State’s refusal to pay interest to the applicant to compensate for the delay in payment was compatible with that provision.

New delays in the execution of the judgment arose because the public body responsible for paying compensation had not been unequivocally identified.

Under the Convention, the States Parties were responsible not only for the delays attributable to their legal systems in the handling of a particular case, but also for structural deficiencies in their

29 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56002/19 OÜ PAREM KALLAS against Estonia lodged on 21 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a delay

Since the Chief Justice had still not finalised these points, the applicants wrote on 8 July 1997 to the President of the High Court in relation to this delay, citing previous delays in the proceedings