F..., représentée par Me Delavay, demande au tribunal : 1°) d’annuler la décision du 23 janvier 2024 par laquelle le préfet du Haut-Rhin a refusé de lui délivrer un document de circulation pour étranger

Delahaye. Les parties, dûment convoquées, ont été régulièrement averties du jour de l'audience. Ont été entendus au cours de l'audience publique : - le rapport de M.

Delahaye, premier conseiller, - les conclusions de Mme Collomb, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Marie pour Mme Rafaillac. Considérant ce qui suit : 1.

    Relevant domestic law and practice Article 48 (2) of the Constitution provides, inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay.

On 4 May 1998 the applicant complained to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor ( Riigiprokuratuur ) about the delay in examining his case.

The delay in the proceedings from December 1997 to March 1998 was thus attributable to the applicant.

On 30 July 2008 the Prague 2 District Court dismissed the action holding that the proceedings on merits had been carried out smoothly without delays.

The Constitutional Court found no particular delays in the proceedings which should be imputed to the applicant.

Maître DELABY - Mandataire liquidateur- 16 rue Molière 02204 SOISSONS " pris en sa qualité de représentant des créanciers au redressement judiciaire de la SA EUREMALCO FRANCE".

Maître DELABY - Mandataire liquidateur- 16 rue Molière 02204 SOISSONS " pris en sa qualité de représentant des créanciers au redressement judiciaire de la SA EUREMALCO FRANCE".

    Complaint about delays 19.

    The applicant alleged that a delay in releasing him from prison had given rise to a violation of Article 5. 4.

The lodging of a complaint about delays shall not be limited by time. 3.

The Government admitted that the proceedings had suffered from certain delays, but were of the opinion that these delays had not been caused by the conduct of the State authorities involved in the applicant's

   General Scheme of the European Convention on Human Rights (Compensation for Delays in Court Proceedings) Bill 2018 56 .

Accordingly, it remained to be determined whether the State’s refusal to pay interest to the applicant to compensate for the delay in payment was compatible with that provision.

New delays in the execution of the judgment arose because the public body responsible for paying compensation had not been unequivocally identified.

Under the Convention, the States Parties were responsible not only for the delays attributable to their legal systems in the handling of a particular case, but also for structural deficiencies in their

29 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56002/19 OÜ PAREM KALLAS against Estonia lodged on 21 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a delay

Par un mémoire en défense enregistré le 7 février 2025, les sociétés Loison, Betom Ingénierie, Delannoy Dewailly, et Satelec, représentées par Me Laurent Heyte, concluent : 1°) à titre principal, au