89.[T]he Court emphasises that, according to its established case-law, a chronic overload, like the one in the present case, cannot justify excessively long proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Pammel v. Germany and Probstmeier v. Germany, 1 July 1997, § 69 and § 64 respectively, Reports 1997‑IV; contrast, as regards the temporary backlog of court business and prompt remedial action, Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 40, Series A no. 157). Moreover, while what was at stake for the applicant in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was of considerable importance, the Constitutional Court, according to the Government, was not in position to adopt and implement any priority polic[y].
90.[A]ccordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Hotărârea din data de 8 octombrie 2019, Milanovic v Serbia, disponibilă aici)