On 23 August 2004 the applicant wrote directly to the panel to complain about the delays in his case.

    The case concerns a three-year delay on the part of the Croatian authorities in enforcing a final judgment against the State in the applicants’ favour. THE FACTS 2.

The delays caused by adjournments of hearings on the initiative of the court had been negligible.

  319-A), the resulting delays cannot be attributed to the authorities.

  Letters nos. 15, 17, 18 and 19   The applicant complains of delay in the sending of these letters.

such an action being preventative of further delay ( Kudła v.

Furthermore, insofar as the applicant complained about the delays in the proceedings, he had in particular not specified which delays he considered to be attributable to the judicial organs and had not

No unjustified delays had been established. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 28.

On 31 May 2001 the vice-president of the Prešov Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about delays in the proceedings.

Therefore, the applicants could have brought the alleged delay in the determination of their action to the attention of the Supreme Court. 20.

    The Government argued that the applicant had caused delays by defaulting and challenging the bench, the registrar and the prosecutor.

The domestic authorities did not acknowledge that the delay in enforcement had breached the Convention.

As to the conduct of the Regional Court, there was a single delay between 18   December 2002 and 23 May 2003. Otherwise the Regional Court had proceeded with the case in an appropriate manner.

These delays are to be attributed to the court.

The delay between June 1996 and June 1998 was caused by the applicant’s attempts to seek a Certificate of Inadequacy and his requests for adjournment of the enforcement proceedings.

It will further examine whether the delay of one year and ten months in its enforcement was justified. 18.

The judicial authorities could not be blamed for the delays that had been caused by the parties’ conduct.

It complains in particular of the delay which occurred between the investigation of its premises and accounts in the beginning of 1987 and the written liability claim of 26 October 1989 and the further

The Court reiterates that the adequacy of compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as unreasonable delay (see,