The applicants maintained that the delay of execution had been unreasonable, without challenging the Government’s account of facts.

The only way to remedy the situation had been to subsequently provide a compensatory remedy for the damage suffered as a result of the delays.

The court found that during the relevant period between 13 December 2004 and 22 March 2007 there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the Kraków District Court.

The court held that the 2004 Act had retroactive effect only under the condition that the delays in the proceedings, which were the subject of the length complaint, continued to occur or to have effect

His subsequent motions for release were also examined with some delay.

  It pointed out that unusually lengthy delays in the payment of compensation for expropriation could result in a greater financial loss for the person whose property had been expropriated.

This resulted in several delays of the overall duration of more than six months. The applicant disagreed stating that she had not missed any hearing without a valid reason.

In particular, is the compensation due to the applicants for the deprivation of their possessions proportionate particularly in view of the delay in in actualising the intended project and the delay in

Those delays had been unreasonably long and manifestly inadequate in such a grave medical emergency.

lodged an application for settlement with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings with the State Attorney’s Office, as foreseen by the 2006

(ii)     Effectiveness of the investigation – The unexplained delay of six days between notification of the disappearance and the start of the preliminary inquiry had resulted in the loss of

  On the other hand, the applicants cannot be held responsible for any of the delays which occurred in the course of the domestic proceedings.

3718/08, 3719/08, 3724/08, 3725/08, 3728/08, 3730/08, 3731/08, 3733/08, 3734/08, 3735/08, 3737/08, 3739/08, 3740/08, 3745/08 and 3746/08 )   INEFFECTIVENESS OF NEW REMEDY FOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT DELAYS

On 11 February 2003 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the delay in the proceedings was due to the heavy workload of judges.

    On 31 October 2006 and 10 November 2010 the Constitutional Court ruled on the applicant’s complaint and a repeated complaint under Article   127 of the Constitution of delays in the

order to decide whether the refusal by the German courts to release the Applicant was a violation of Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, it must first be decided whether or not a delay

The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility for delays (see Belayev v.   Russia (dec.), no.

    The Court considered that there were no grounds in the circumstances of the present case for departing from the usual principle that the primary responsibility for delays resulting from the

In particular the applicants should not have been obliged to make use of judicial or administrative proceedings to recover what they were owed, especially as they had to run the risk of loss through delays