On 27 October 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay.

Délibéré après l'audience du 14 avril 2026, à laquelle siégeaient : Mme Dely, présidente, Mme Deniel, vice-présidente, Mme Bazin, première conseillère.

These two periods did not disclose any unreasonable delay.

On 16 December 2002 the City Court refused to delay the execution.

The other parties caused delays on twenty-one occasions (a delay of nearly thirteen months). Certain delays were caused by the fact that the parties appealed against first-instance judgments.

ES QUALITE DE MANDATAIRE LIQUIDATEUR DE SAS CAMPING CAR CENTER, SAS CAMPING CAR CENTER, SA AXA FRANCE IARD DB/ MCM INDEMNISATION ASSURANCE Grosse délivrée Me DELPY, avocat COUR D'APPEL DE LIMOGES

    Damages under the State Responsibility for Damage Act for delays in the examination of appeals against detention 43.

TRIBUNAL DES ACTIVITES ECONOMIQUES DE NANTERRE JUGEMENT PRONONCE LE 4 Juillet 2025 Sème CHAMBRE DEMANDEUR SARLU [Adresse 1] [Adresse 2] comparant par Me Nicole DELAY [Adresse 3] [Adresse 4] et par Me

] [Adresse 2] comparant par Me Guillaume BOULAN [Adresse 3] Cabinet CRTD [Localité 2] [Adresse 4] et par Me [I] [J] [Adresse 5] DEFENDEUR SASU PERCASSI BATIMENT [Adresse 6] comparant par Me Nicole DELAY

TRIBUNAL DES ACTIVITES ECONOMIQUES DE NANTERRE JUGEMENT PRONONCE LE 7 Janvier 2026 3ème CHAMBRE DEMANDEUR SAS [R] ENERGIE [Adresse 1] comparant par Me Nicole DELAY [Adresse 2] [Adresse 3] et par Me Johann

TRIBUNAL DES ACTIVITES ECONOMIQUES DE NANTERRE JUGEMENT PRONONCE LE 30 Janvier 2025 4ème CHAMBRE DEMANDEUR SCCVTE SCI ST OUEN [Adresse 1] comparant par Me Nicole DELAY [Adresse 2] [Adresse 3] et par

TRIBUNAL DES ACTIVITES ECONOMIQUES DE NANTERRE JUGEMENT PRONONCE LE 17 Janvier 2025 5ème CHAMBRE DEMANDEUR SAS SYSTEME DE SECURITE INCENDIE SERVICE [Adresse 1] [Localité 1] comparant par Me Nicole DELAY

Etienne Huré et Mme Corinne Delaye, juges, assistés de Mme Margaux Lebrun, greffier.

Given that the applicant company had been responsible for a delay of over a year, the length of the proceedings before the administrative court of appeal had not been unreasonable.

The applicant’s claim for compensation for moral damage suffered as the result of the ZCM’s failure to respond to his request for information about the delays in payment of his salary was not mentioned

The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v.   Russia, no.   59498/00, ECHR 2002-III).

On 14 February 2007 a public prosecutor of the Bratislava I District Prosecutor’s Office admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings.

The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed without further delay and ordered reimbursement of the applicant’s costs. It   dismissed his claim for just satisfaction.

On 2 January 2002 the Deputy Ombudsman criticized the Authority for unreasonable delay in issuing the requested statement.

practice The Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act 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