53. In relation to the second criterion, the Court considers that expeditious proceedings require, inter alia, the necessary cooperation of the parties who must endeavour to produce all documents required by the courts. 54. In the present case, it is clear that the Court of Appeal adjourned the case on several occasions in order to obtain the trial court’s judgment. The Applicant, who filed the appeal and who clearly had an interest in the outcome of the case, simply proffered mere assertions. He does not provide any evidence that he took the necessary steps either personally or through his lawyer, to obtain the said judgment from the registry of the Cotonou Court of First Instance. 55. Lastly, as regards the third criterion relating to the alleged unlawful conduct on the part of the national judicial authorities, the Court notes that the Applicant does not adduce any evidence of collusion between that court and the SBEE, or of any manifest and unjustified refusal on the part of the said authorities to deliver the judgment at issue, with a view to prolonging the proceedings. Consequently, the Court considers that the judicial authorities cannot be accused of unlawful conduct in the present case. 56. In the light of all the foregoing, the Court considers that the Applicant bears responsibility for the unduly prolonged appeal proceedings he alleges insofar as he does not adduce any evidence of collusion between that court and the SBEE, or of any unjustified refusal on the part of the said authorities to deliver the judgment at issue, with a view to prolonging the proceedings. 57. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent State unduly prolonged the appeal proceedings. 15