jurisdiction in respect of the first and second sets of the proceedings did not begin on 14   November 1994, but on 6 November 1997, after the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia (see Horvat

into force in respect of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see Atanasovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 13886/02, §   26, 22   December   2005; Horvat

noted that general measures had already been taken by the respondent state to prevent new violations related to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see Final Resolution DH(2005)60 in the case of Horvat

employé ou bien, pour une raison quelconque, n’était ni adéquat ni effectif compte tenu des faits de la cause, ou encore que certaines circonstances particulières le dispensaient de cette obligation ( Horvat

employé ou bien, pour une raison quelconque, n’était ni adéquat ni effectif compte tenu des faits de la cause, ou encore que certaines circonstances particulières le dispensaient de cette obligation ( Horvat

les raisons pour lesquelles la situation de [E] [P] a été retenue alors que celui-ci se trouve au niveau 6 et occupe l'emploi de cadre stratégique ; qu'à la date de la saisine de la juridiction prud' hornale

Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning access to court and property rights to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent

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.

  87, §   38; Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, §   38, ECHR   2001-VIII; and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, §   142, ECHR 2006 ‑ ...).

Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI; and Horvat v. Croatia , no. 51585/99, § 37, ECHR   2001 ‑ VIII).

  87, §   38; Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, §   38, ECHR   2001-VIII; and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, §   142, ECHR 2006 ‑ ...).

à Me Olivier LERIDON Me Pascal GORRIAS Me Sylvie GENDRE Me Manuel FURET Me Gilles SOREL Me Pierre JOURDON Me Ingrid CANTALOUBE-FERRIEU Me Jacques MONFERRAN Me Agnès VINCENT Me Jérôme HORTAL

  87, §   38; Horvat v. Croatia , no.   51585/99, §   38, ECHR   2001-VIII; and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, §   142, ECHR 2006 ‑ ...).

organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee everyone's right to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see Horvat

Horvat, lawyers practising in Zagreb. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Štefica Stažnik. A.

Il s'ensuit que ce recours ne satisfait pas aux exigences de l'article 13 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis , l'arrêt Horvat c.   Croatie , n° 51585/99, §§ 46-48, non publié). 36.

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

Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb; the decision to give notice of the application to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š.

personal right to the exercise by the State of its supervisory powers, and such an appeal does not therefore constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article   35 of the Convention (see Horvat

Hoavas CH..., demeurant ..., 13 / de M. Messaoud CQ..., demeurant ..., 14 / de M. Mohamed CR..., demeurant ..., 15 / de M. Laïd DG..., demeurant ..., 16 / de M.