CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 août 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 12 September 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25650/22 Emma DAUGAARD SORENSEN against Denmark lodged on 17 May 2022 communicated on 22 August 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 7 June 2021 the applicant reported to the police that she had been raped by M the previous day. On 30 July 2021 the prosecution, at first instance, decided to drop the charges against M, a decision that was overturned on appeal by the Regional State Prosecutor on 16 September 2021. However, having failed to inform M about that decision within the time-limit set out in section 724(2) of the Administration of Justice Act, the charges against M were dropped by a City Court decision of 16 November 2021. It appears that the applicant was informed thereof when the Regional State Prosecutor, on 30 November 2021, wrote a letter to the applicant’s lawyer apologising and explaining that an error had occurred at his office when sending a registered letter to M. On 21 December 2021 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation in the amount of 100,000 Danish Kroner with the Compensation Board. That case is still pending. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the charges against M were dropped on 16 November 2021 due to the Regional State Prosecutor’s failure to comply with the time-limit set out in section 724(2) of the Administration of Justice Act, has there been a violation of Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention (see, for example, M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 150, 152-153, ECHR   2003 ‑ XII)?   2.     Has there been a separate violation of Articles 6 or 13 (see, for example,   M.C.   v. Bulgaria , cited above, § 148, and A and B v.   Croatia , no.   7144/15, §§ 84 and 85, 20 June 2019)?