There is nothing in Article 6 of the ECHR to prevent a continuation of delayed proceedings, even if they have not been concluded within a reasonable time, so long as the fairness of the trial has not been or will not be compromised.
Where there has been delay in the conduct of proceedings such as to breach a party's right under the Convention to trial within a reasonable time but where the fairness of the trial has not been or will not be compromised such delay does not give rise to a continuing breach which cannot be cured save by a discontinuation of proceedings. It gives rise to a breach which can be cured, even where it cannot be prevented, by expedition, reduction of sentence or compensation, provided always that the breach, where it occurs, is publicly acknowledged and addressed: Spiers v Ruddy  UKPC D2.
Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings are 'effective' within the meaning of article 13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred: Zarb v Malta  ECHR 1163. (And see Kudla v Poland  35 EHRR 198, para 158.)
4th Edition » | Chapter 10