However, as regards the conduct of the proceedings, there were a number of delays of several months and, having regard to the circumstances of the case as a whole, special diligence was not displayed.

applications, as declared admissible by the Commission on 7 April 1997, the applicants complained of a breach to the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration's delay

However, no delay can be attributed to the applicant, other than the period during which he absconded, whereas a very long delay between 1985 and 1991 is attributable to the judicial authorities.

refused to allow him temporary release so that he could marry elsewhere amounted to an interference with the exercise of the applicant's right to marry, that the imposition of any substantial period of delay

MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quality of the medical care received by the applicant in custody and the alleged unlawfulness of his detention between 13 July and 4   October 2017, a delay

the applicant is still detained despite the obligation of Azerbaijan to comply with the judgment of the Court;   Reiterated with insistence its call to the authorities to ensure without further delay

Likewise, they argued that the applicant could have obtained compensation under the Tort Liability Act if the delay in the court proceedings had been caused by an erroneous or negligent act of a public

Law : Article   2 – Alleged inadequacy of the investigation : The investigation had been plagued by inexplicable delays, although it was crucial in cases of deaths in contentious situations for the

Turkey - 25952/03 and 25966/03 Judgment 27.5.2010 [Section II] Article 34 Victim Intervening domestic friendly settlement for payment of judgment debt following substantial delays in payment: victim status

To hold that a delay (including an unacceptable delay) in providing it constitutes a breach of article 5, via the ancillary duty recognised, would be likely to have the perverse effect of discouraging

    The applicants submitted that no delays were imputable to them. 70.

    Complaint about delays 27.     Article 217a of the CCP, adopted in July 1999, provides: “1.

Finally, he alleges that the judges of the town court abused their position to delay the examination of his case. 39.

The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant’s conduct.

On 28 June 2001 the Dobrich Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against delays in the enforcement proceedings and found that there had been unjustified delays.

    On 27 July 2005 expert W., having been asked by the Regional Court to finalize her report without delay, submitted her report to the Regional Court.

They further submitted that the applicant had caused some delays in the proceedings.

    The Court notes that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under

Paragraph 3 of that Ordinance states, in so far as relevant: “All administrative formalities shall be carried out without delay ( niezwłocznie ) ...