On 13 June 2000 the applicant filed a complaint about delays (see paragraph 15 below).

In any event, irrespective of the reasons for the applicant's objection to the expert examination, the delay incurred therefrom was negligible. 29.

He further considered that the delay was not of such a nature that the Joint Court of Appeal should ex officio have examined the compatibility of this delay with Article 6 of the Convention.

    On 19 March 1997 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about delays in the proceedings.

    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. 15.

The doctor responded by pointing out that further delay in finding a permanent placement was not in the twin's interests but gave limited support to the assessment of the mother.

    On 20   March   1996 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice about the delay in the proceedings.

    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.

Such an application was an effective remedy against delays by judicial organs, and the applicant was thus bound to make use of it.

As regards the complaint about the subsequent enforcement delays, the Court observes that the Government initially acknowledged the delay in enforcement of the domestic judgment and offered the applicant

On 9 December 1993 the President of the District Court called upon the judge in charge of the action to explain the delay complained of.

The relevant periods of delay on the part of the authorities could not therefore be attributed to the claimants in such cases.

With such an attitude the applicant had manifestly intended to delay the criminal proceedings.

It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant’s costs. 10.

at two hearings and lodged one appeal that did not meet procedural requirements, which resulted in a delay of about four months.

    The applicant complained about the unreasonable delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 14   September   2000 given in his favour.

The Court further notes that long delays (for example, between March   2000 and April 2001) were caused by K.

The Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of non-compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement (see Humen v.

However, the applicants maintained that the delay in the enforcement was nevertheless excessive.