4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  The applicant lodged a criminal complaint of defamation against a journalist, A.A., together with a civil claim for damages. At a hearing held on 19 December 2001, attended by the applicant's representative, the Bucharest District Court postponed the delivery of a judgment to 28 December 2001. By a first-instance judgment delivered on the latter date the Bucharest District Court dismissed both the criminal complaint and the civil claim. 6.  On 9 January 2002, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. The Bucharest County Court, by a final decision of 15 May 2002, upheld the first-instance judgment in respect of the criminal complaint and reversed the decision in respect of the civil claim. Thus, the county court established the tort liability of the journalist and awarded the applicant 100,000,000 Romanian lei (approximately 3,300 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. By the same decision, the county court dismissed the objection to the effect that the appeal on points of law was inadmissible as having been lodged outside the 10-day time-limit. The county court referred to the provisions of Article 363 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), according to which the period during which an appeal may be lodged starts to elapse on the date of delivery of the judgment if the party concerned was present either at the hearing or at the delivery. As the applicant was not present at the hearing, although her representative was, the period did not start to elapse on the date of delivery of the judgment, and thus the appeal was lodged within the legal time-limit. 7.  On an unspecified date the Procurator–General filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision quashed on the ground that the appeal on points of law had been lodged out of time and should have been dismissed as inadmissible. 8.  In a decision of 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 15 May 2002 and dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law as having been lodged outside the legal time-limit. The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the party's representative at the hearing was equivalent to the presence of the party herself and therefore the time-limit had started to run on the date of delivery of the judgment.