He submits in particular that the delay between the judgment of the Regional Court and the hearing on appeal before the Court of Appeal cannot be regarded as reasonable.

The applicant made a complaint about delays.

    The applicant complained about the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 23 October 2006.

In 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to have his case decided without undue delay.

Adresse 2] APPELANTE Comparante ET : Maître [T] [Y], demeurant [Adresse 1] INTIME Comparant L'affaire a été plaidée à l'audience du 10 mars 2022 devant Madame Nathalie DELPEY-CORBAUX

  FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24581/21 Darren John CONQUER against the United Kingdom lodged on 7 May 2021 communicated on 23 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns delay

Those adjournments, coupled with the excessive delay with which the applicant on each occasion requested that a new hearing date be fixed, were the cause of a delay of more than twenty years for which

With respect to the conduct of the national authorities, the Court considers that although they contributed to some of the delays, in particluar because of administrative errors, the delays attributable

  This delay has to be balanced against the delays attributable to the authorities (see para. 43).

    Moreover, the Government emphasised that delays of at least two and a half years were clearly attributable to the applicant.

  In the Government's opinion, the applicant is to blame for these delays which were caused by his manner of litigation.

The Governor held that after 26   August 2013 (the date when the case file had been transferred) (see above) there had been no undue delay in conducting the proceedings before the Mayor.

Slovakia (no. 30189/07, 12 June 2012), which concerned a delay of more than six years – dealt with unjustified delays imputable to the courts that were substantially longer than those in the present case

    The Court will now assess whether this delay in the execution of the judgment of 13 May 2004 was reasonable. 29.

in examining requests for release/objection Failure/Delay to communicate decisions relating to detention   40468/23 Zengin v.

They highlight various delays caused by the applicant himself in the course of the proceedings, together with shorter delays caused by Ms X in the Court of Session.

No explanation for these specific delays has been offered by the Government. 40.

However, apart from these delays the District Court had dealt with the case properly and the said delays had played no significant role in respect of the proceedings as a whole.

Government and of the applicant, which cannot be blamed for such delays (see, mutatis mutandis, Bačák v.