La présidente du tribunal a désigné, en application de l'article L. 511-2 du code de justice administrative, Mme Isabelle Dely, première vice-présidente, comme juge des référés.

La présidente du tribunal a désigné Mme A Dely, première vice-présidente, en application de l'article L. 511-2 du code de justice administrative, pour statuer sur les demandes de référé.

La présidente du tribunal a désigné Mme Isabelle Dely, première vice-présidente, en application de l'article L. 511-2 du code de justice administrative, pour statuer sur les demandes de référé.

La présidente du tribunal a désigné Mme Isabelle Dely, première vice-présidente, en application de l'article L. 511-2 du code de justice administrative, pour statuer sur les demandes de référé.

[T]he delegation heard complaints from prisoners at [the prisons visited, in Burgas and Stara Zagora] about delays in gaining access to the doctor.

    The Government cited the following instances as examples of delay attributable to the applicants’ conduct.

should not have to bear the additional burden resulting from that delay (see, mutatis mutandis , Gladysheva v.

Accordingly, the Court accepts the applicants' assertion of the delays in the enforcement of the judgments, and notes that, as regards Mr   Pridatchenko, such delays amounted to two years, one month

Decisions on such requests are to be delivered without delay.

In the case of the first applicant, this delay lasted almost two and a half years, i.e. between 14 September 1986 and 3 March 1989, and, in the case of the second applicant, this delay lasted almost three

For the Court, these futile procedures resulted in a delay of at least one year, which must be imputable to the applicant.

The Government further maintained that the Bailiffs had performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay. 17.

No acceptable justification was advanced by the Government for this delay. 18.

He maintained that the Government's arguments could not justify the significant delay in the enforcement of the judgment. 17.

Petersburg prosecutor’s office, about unreasonable delays in the proceedings. On 3 March 1999 the St.

  No unreasonable delays were caused by the competent authorities.

The Court found that the Government had not advanced any justification for that delay and, accordingly, held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1.

    The parties’ submissions The Government submitted that the case against the applicant was complex and that there were no unreasonable delays attributable to the authorities.

As of 21   April 2016 the applicant had the opportunity to request the payment of just satisfaction due to the violation of the right to a trial without undue delay before domestic authorities, but