The Government submitted, inter alia , that the applicant party had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies because it had not filed a “complaint about delays”.

    The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , Official Gazette, No. 49/2006 – “the 2006 Act”) became

      The applicant has first complained of the delay between 20 January and 5 March 1986 in the Court of Appeal's decision to refuse him leave to appeal to the House of Lords

The Government further submit that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant and her lawyer contributed to the delay in the conduct of the proceedings since they did not provide the

    In their initial observations the Government admitted that they had been responsible for a three years’ delay in the enforcement, and that this delay had violated the applicant’s rights.

That delay is attributable to the judicial authorities. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment one year, nine months and sixteen days after the appeal on points of law had been lodged.

    As to the complaint about the alleged lack of speedy determination of the applicant’s request, the Constitutional Court observed, in particular, that the time-delay in serving the Special

The Centre also lodged a counterclaim against the Ministry asking the court to recognise the violation of its rights on account of the delay in its state registration.

    The applicant is responsible for nine months of delay, because he refused the at in Taganrog.

However, they maintained their allegation of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in this letter on account of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the excessive delay in the payment of additional

  Section 16 provides that, in cases when the authority in charge of State administration of courts finds that a judge caused delays in proceedings by disrespecting his or her legal obligations, it

  The Inquiry opened in public on 6 October 2010: various submissions were made including on behalf of the applicant concerning delay.

to a trial without undue delay has been infringed.”

They submitted that some periods of delay in the proceedings had been attributable to the applicants and that this had caused general delay of about seven months.

Consequently, he cannot rely on any delay in the proceedings to determine his allegations of fraud.

A complaint of undue delay shall not require a reasoned notification. ...

The applicant argued that there were the delays in the proceedings caused by the judicial authorities. 66.

    The Court considers that even if certain delays in the proceedings could be attributable to the conduct of the applicant, these delays resulted from the justified exercise of his procedural

The applicants maintained that such a delay was in breach of the domestic law. 31.

  However, as this delay only amounted to one month it could still be accepted.