The case was not complex and the applicant had not contributed to the delays in the proceedings.

January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32662/20 Martin Ariel VASSALLO against Hungary lodged on 29 July 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns delays

Bulgaria - 47799/99 Judgment 28.10.2004 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Delay in implementing decision to release from detention: violation After placing the applicant in pre-trial

There was no indication that they had contributed to the delays: the regional court, in particular, had tried repeatedly to hold trial hearings and had had the applicant’s fitness to stand trial examined

(c)     Is the delay in the criminal proceedings caused by the consecutive adjournments of the examination of the case mainly imputable to the state authorities?

Criminal Procedure the private prosecutor is to reimburse the costs of the proceedings which were discontinued due to the prosecution becoming time-barred, unless the prescription occurred due to the delay

However, the requirement of effectiveness of the criminal investigation under Article   2 could also be interpreted as imposing a duty on States to execute their final judgments without undue delay

complaint lodged under the Law of 17 June 2004 about the breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay

awarded by the Court; (2) the costs required to submit an application for just satisfaction request are excessive compared to the sums eventually awarded; (3) the law does not allow to take into account delays

CHEVAL, sise [Adresse 1] INTIMEE Comparante en la personne de Maître [W] [N], avocat au barreau de BESANCON L'affaire a été plaidée à l'audience du 10 Novembre 2022 devant Nathalie DELPEY-CORBAUX

CDB THALIA, immatriculée au RCS de Bourg-en-Bresse sous le numéro 802 350 595, dont le siège social est sis 576 rue du Bourg - 01630 ST JEAN DE GONVILLE représentée par Me Carole DELAY, avocat au barreau

Secretary would not allow him temporary release so that he could marry elsewhere, amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to marry, that the imposition of any substantial period of delay

Court’s case-law 22 September 2000 Howarth v. the United Kingdom - 38081/97 Judgment 21.9.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of criminal proceedings – delay

It also declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the delays.

The main delay was a period of 4½ years from October 1988 to April 1993, including a three year delay which cannot be considered reasonable. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

The circumstances of the case did not justify such a delay.

  Continuation of detention after a decision requiring detainee's immediate release Some delay in executing a decision is understandable, but in instant case applicant had remained in detention for

[E], de la SCP Duhamel, avocat de la société Square habitat nord de France, et l'avis de Mme Delpey-Corbaux, avocat général, après débats en l'audience publique du 19 novembre 2024 où étaient présents