on 5 July 1988 expressed unanimously the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in

6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 18 January 1989 as regards the above-mentioned complaint and in its report adopted on

(art. 6-1), of the Convention;        Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;   &#

By ignoring the point altogether, even though it was specific, pertinent and important, the courts had fallen short of their obligations under Article   6(1).

Slovakia , no. 43377/98, §§ 24-28, 7 January 2003). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 23.

Therefore, it finds that it has not been established that the applicant had any effective remedy at its disposal which would have enabled it to submit its complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention

It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court will therefore declare it admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The submissions before the Court 25.

    The applicants maintained that the case had not been complex. In conclusion they submitted that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. 19.

  France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 20.

It held that the situation came within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which was not confined to situations in which property was transferred to the State.

France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 23.

Ukraine (no.   67534/01, §§ 16-19). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 19.

    The applicant alleged that her case had not been heard within a reasonable time in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4.

    Applicability of Article 6 § 1 18.     The applicability of Article 6 to the relevant proceedings has not been contested before the Court.

Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and

Law : Article 6 § 1 - The proceedings began in June 1993 and ended, with regard to the merits, in January 1998.

    The applicant alleged in particular that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4.

    The Court finds no reason to contradict the Government’s submission that the applicant did not significantly contribute to the delay. 38.