However, the period which falls within the Court's jurisdiction did not begin on that date, but on 6 November 1997, after the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia (see Horvat v.

J D’AI ARCHITECTURE, RCS [Localité 14] 483 406 377, dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 6] représentée par Me Jérôme HORTAL, avocat au barreau de TOULOUSE, avocat plaidant/postulant, vestiaire : 132

    The Court recalls that on 26 July 2001 in the case of Horvat v.

Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.

  26614/95, § 60, 15 October 1999, and Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, § 52, ECHR 2001-VIII). C.     Submissions of the parties 39.

    Effective remedy against excessive length of judicial proceedings   Following the European Court's judgment in the Horvat case (judgment of 26 July 2001, final resolution ResDH(2005)

Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   Š. Stažnik. 3.

général avaient déjà été adoptées par l’Etat défendeur pour éviter de nouvelles violations ayant trait à la durée excessive de procédures civiles (voir la résolution finale ResDH(2005)60 dans l’affaire Horvat

However, the period which falls within the Court’s jurisdiction did not begin on that date, but on 6 November 1997, after the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia (see Horvat v.

period which falls within the Court’s jurisdiction did not begin on that date, but on 10 April 1997, after the Convention entered into force in respect of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see Horvat

Pologne [GC], n o 26614/95, § 60, 15 octobre 1999, et Horvat c. Croatie , n o 51585/99, § 52, CEDH 2001-VIII). C.     Arguments des parties 39.

Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2003-VIII, and Horvat v. Croatia , no. 51585/99, § 39, ECHR 2001-VIII).

“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” , no. 13886/02, §   26, 22 December 2005; Horvat v. Croatia , no. 51585/99, §   50, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII) . 41.

[Adresse 7] [Localité 2] Représentée par Me Jérôme HORTAL, avocat au barreau de TOULOUSE COMPOSITION DE LA COUR En application des dispositions des articles 805 et 907 du Code de

  56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, ECHR   2001 ‑ VIII; Kozlica v.

  56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII; Kozlica v.

Luc, juge des référés, - les observations de Me Hortal, représentant Mme C, absente à l'audience, qui a repris les moyens développés dans ses écritures, - et les observations de Me Tesseyre, représentant

  56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII; Kozlica v.

  56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, ECHR   2001 ‑ VIII; Kozlica v.

Sainte-Anne, dont le siège est [...]                                     , 109°/ à la société hôtel de la Vendée, dont le siège est [...]                                      , 110°/ à la société Horseval