criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold

Norway and Ringvold v. Norway (application nos. 29327/95, 30287/96 and 34964/97 – Rule 43 § 2)). 6.

Norway (cited above, §§ 43-46) the reasoning and language used by the civil court created a clear link between the criminal case and the compensation proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Ringvold v.

    In contrast, in Ringvold v.

Relying on Ringvold v. Norway (no.   34964/97, ECHR 2003 ‑ II) and Lundkvist v.

The important thing is the language adopted by the court when deciding the civil claim, as illustrated in the contrasting decisions in Ringvold v Norway (Application No 34964/97), and Y   v  

    Relying on the case of Ringvold v.   Norway (no.

The ECtHR recognises in principle that article 6(2) does not apply to the claim for damages: see, for example, Ringvold para 38.

against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Mr Ringolds