Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 17248/11

Although the respondent State did not raise any objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae, this issue calls for consideration ex officio by the Court (see, for example, Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, ECHR 2009).

Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 17248/11

The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine to what extent the above requirements have been met (see Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 17248/11

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).

Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 17248/11

The Court recalls that it cannot exclude the possibility that a commercial company may be awarded pecuniary compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000-IV).