THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the rate of interest for delays, payable on the additional compensation for expropriation, was too low and that

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

Achieving that objective had entailed scheduling up to 150 interviews a day and even small delays could disrupt the entire programme.

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns delays

In particular, the Court notes the delays attributable to the applicant, notably twenty-seven adjournments of the hearings, which protracted the proceedings by one year and nine months.

The Government also stated that the Bailiffs performed all necessary actions to enforce the decision and could not be held liable for any delay.

He also noted that the delay in the appellate court proceedings had been caused by the delay in receiving the expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs.

They further maintained that the applicant could claim compensation for the delay in the enforcement of the judgment.

    On 5 June 1998 the president of the Zvolen District Court informed the applicant that there had been no undue delays in the proceedings.

  Petersburg City Court dismissed the complaint, noting that the problem of delays had to be solved by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court. 15.

    Delays in delivery and opening of the Court’s letter of 17   April 2009 12.

    In a judgment delivered on 15 January 2009 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a delay in the proceedings, and responsibility for that delay lay more with the acquiring

In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v.

Delays imputable to the district court totalled 10 years and 8 months. 9.

Thus, the Court is unable to come to the conclusion that the delay in the pre-trial proceedings was not attributable to the State.

    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. 20.

    The Government argued that the case was of some difficulty and that a certain part of the delay was clearly attributable to the applicant.

As a result, the Commission considers that the State authorities were responsible for the delay of one year, six months and 13 days which ensued.   35.

There had been no significant delays between May 2001 and June 2003.