Delays imputable to the Považská Bystrica District Court had amounted to a total of 4 years. 10.

He sought a declaration that the delay in the Parole Board reviewing his case from December 2008-September 2009 breached Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

He sought a declaration that the delay in the Parole Board reviewing his case from December 2008-September 2009 breached Article 5(4) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

and unlawfully delayed the examination of their registration request; thirdly asking the court to provide legal interpretation as to whether the Ministry had a right under domestic law to repeatedly delay

The District Court requested in regular intervals information on whether the debtor’s financial situation had changed and had not caused any unnecessary delays.

    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.

Türkiye 23/07/2019 Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 2. 49433/19 Demir v.

    On 2 September 1997 the applicant complained about undue delays in the proceedings to the president of the Košice Regional Court ( Krajský súd ).

He also requested that the judge of this court dealing with his case be disqualified on the ground that she was involved in the complaint about the delays in the proceedings.

The Supreme Court has taken a number of measures to prevent such delays from arising.

Bulgaria - 29263/12 Judgment 3.3.2015 [Section IV] Article 3 Effective investigation Undue delays in criminal proceedings and failure properly to investigate rape and assault allegations: violation Article

The Government submitted that the judgment had been enforced without excessive delay. The applicants insisted that the length of enforcement had been substantial.

The District Court had failed to proceed in an appropriate manner and it was responsible for delays totalling 52 months.

cases of the remaining applicants have been pending before the Supreme Court since 2019, with no information provided since October 2022 to give any indication to the Committee as to the cause of the delay

Thus, an aggregate delay of approximately three months is attributable to the applicant.

    15070/22 09/03/2022 Shandor BALOH 1995 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review was carried out with a delay

The Supreme Court has taken a number of measures to prevent such delays from arising.

Relevant here was the speed with which the domestic courts had issued a fresh detention order after the expiry of the previous one, the existence of adequate safeguards against unreasonable delay, the

to RON 181 (approximately EUR 45) for each day of delay.