6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Tabor, Czech Republic. 7.  On 27 August 1982 the applicant was involved in a major traffic accident in Serbia. Her car was destroyed in a head-on collision with an inter-city bus while the applicant and her family members all sustained serious injuries. 8.  On 16 May 1985 the applicant filed a compensation claim against a Serbian insurance company with the Municipal Court in Novi Sad (Opštinski sud u Novom Sadu). 9.  Following two remittals, both of which took place before Serbia ratified the Convention, on 25 October 2002 the parties in the domestic proceedings informed the Municipal Court that they were willing to consider a friendly settlement. 10.  On 18 March 2003 the Municipal Court suspended the proceedings, stating that they would be continued should the parties fail to reach a settlement. 11.  Since the friendly settlement negotiations were unsuccessful, on 13 February 2004 the applicant urged the Municipal Court to resume the proceedings. 12.  Following at least three scheduled hearings and the receipt of an expert's report, on 14 June 2007 the Municipal Court ultimately ruled partly in favour of the applicant. On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment became final since neither party filed an appeal against it. 13.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 14.  The Government contested that argument. 15.  The Court observes that the proceedings in question ended by 14 June 2007. Since the respondent State ratified the Convention on 4 March 2004, they have thus been within the Court's competence ratione temporis for a period of more than three years and three months at one level of jurisdiction. 16.  The Court also recalls that, in order to determine the reasonableness of the delay at issue, regard must be had to the state of the case on the date of ratification (see, mutatis mutandis, Styranowski v. Poland, 30 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII) and notes that on 3 March 2004 the impugned proceedings had already been pending for almost nineteen years in all. 17.  The Government raised various objections to the admissibility of the applicant's complaint. However, the Court has rejected similar objections in many previous cases (see, for example, Cvetković v. Serbia, no. 17271/04, §§ 38 and 42, 10 June 2008; Tomić v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 81 and 82, 26 June 2007; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, §§ 85 and 86, 13 March 2007).  It finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require a departure from this jurisprudence. It therefore declares this complaint admissible. 18. The Government further stated that there had been no violation of Article 6. 19.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). 20.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case. 21.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In view of its case-law on the subject, the Court therefore considers that the length of the impugned proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.