According to the Court’s established case-law, a chronic backlog of cases is not a valid explanation for excessive delay (see Probstmeier v.

As to the conduct of the State authorities, the Government accepted that there had been delays in the proceedings imputable to the District Court, in particular, the delays found by the President of the

However, in assessing the reasonableness of the delay which occurred after the date of entry into force of the Convention, account must be taken of delays which had already occurred before that date.

The applicant insisted that he had defaulted because he had been ill and his absence had not caused a substantial delay.

The establishment of rules for conducting a trial within reasonable time and the supervision of the procedures towards preventing delays is the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

It observes that no hearing was held between 8   February   and   12   December 1996 due to a 9-month delay in the preparation of a veterinary report.

On 12 May 1998 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the proceedings.

above), there were delays in the proceedings.

    However, the Court is not satisfied that that lengthy delay should be entirely imputable to the authorities.

No explanation was provided by the Government for this delay. Consequently the Court does not see any reason to exclude this period from the overall duration of its execution.

    The Court further observes that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected

In their view the State could not be held liable for the parties’ behaviour and the delays they had caused. 33.

to ensure that, so far as possible, claimants did not suffer on account of the delay.

Nothing complex or difficult was involved that could account for the overall delay and long adjournments until January 1999. 23.

The duration of these delays cannot be determined precisely, but, in any event, it was less than six months in total. 28.

The Court considers that the Government’s observations do not explain these delays. 46.

    The Court further observes that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected

  The Court dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation for damage caused to his company by the delay in payment as it considered that the applicant had not shown that his company had suffered

The Martin District Court had failed to proceed in an appropriate manner and it was responsible for delays totalling 43 months. 16.