5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  On 24 April 2002 she was hit by a car while crossing the street. The driver left the scene of the accident and took the applicant to hospital, where she was diagnosed with a fractured spine. She underwent surgery five days later and was released from hospital on 14 May 2002. 7.  The police opened an investigation to clarify the circumstances of the accident. 8.  On 19 June 2002 the police took a statement from the applicant, in which she complained that the driver had caused her bodily harm. She also requested 20,000 US dollars (USD) from him in civil damages. 9.  On 5 July 2002 the police officer in charge of the investigation ordered a technical expert report. 10.  On 8 July 2002 an eyewitness was interviewed by the police. 11.  On 23 August 2002 a forensic medical report was attached to the investigation file. It stated that the applicant had suffered injuries which required forty to forty five days of medical care. 12.  According to reports drafted by the investigating police officers, on 30 November 2002 and 16 January 2003 the applicant failed to attend the police station to take note of the objectives set for the expert report. On 5 June 2003 the applicant went to the police station, where she submitted additional questions to be answered by the expert. 13.  On 18 February 2004 the police requested the assistance of an expert to prepare the technical expert report in the case. 14.  On 29 March 2004 the expert examined the scene of the accident in the presence of the driver and the applicant. The driver declared that he agreed with the expert’s findings. 15.  The technical expert report was finalised on 25 August 2004. It stated that the applicant was to blame for the accident because she had crossed the street in an unmarked place without paying attention. The driver, who had been turning his vehicle at the time, had not breached any traffic regulations. The expert appointed by the driver agreed with the report, while the expert appointed by the applicant drafted a dissenting opinion concluding that the fault lay entirely with the driver, who had turned his car without paying attention. 16.  The applicant took note of the expert opinions on 23 November 2004. On 17 January 2005 she submitted objections, to which she received a reply on 25 January 2005. 17.  On 31 January 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest District Court decided not to prosecute the driver, since the fault of the accident lay entirely with the applicant. The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, but it was rejected as ill-founded by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on 4 April 2005. 18.  A complaint by the applicant against the two decisions was declared inadmissible by the Bucharest District Court on 2 June 2005. She lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that judgment. On 4 August 2005 her appeal was allowed by the Bucharest County Court, which decided to send the case back to the prosecutor for a more thorough investigation since numerous facts had not been clarified. 19. On 29 December 2005 the applicant made enquiries with the prosecutor’s office about the status of the investigation.[1] 20.  On 26 April 2006 the same eyewitness was interviewed again. 21.  A new expert report was requested by the prosecutor on 7 July 2006, and on 19 July 2006 the applicant informed the authorities that she would need additional time, until 9 September 2006, to decide whether to instruct a counter expert on her behalf. 22.  On 10 August 2006 a first written statement was taken from the driver. 23.  In statements given to the police on 11 May and 19 October 2006, the applicant mentioned that a new expert report would not be necessary in the case. 24. According to three reports drafted between 2 October and 29 November 2006 by the police officer in charge of the investigation, the applicant could not be contacted, or had failed to come to the police station to give the name of her counter expert. 25.  On 23 January 2007, holding that a new expert report was not necessary, the prosecutor decided again not to prosecute the driver since the fault for the accident lay entirely with the applicant. The decision was upheld by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on 21 February 2007. 26.  The applicant’s complaint against the prosecutors’ decisions was allowed by the Bucharest District Court on 8 May 2007. The court held that the investigative authorities had failed to follow the instructions given in the previous judgment of 4 August 2005. The judgment became final on 26 September 2007 when an appeal on points of law by the prosecutor was dismissed by the Bucharest County Court. 27.  On 9 June 2008 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest District Court noted that the limitation period for the crime under investigation had expired on 24 April 2007 and decided to close the case. 28.  The applicant appealed against that decision before the courts. She claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage from the driver and the Prosecutor’s Office. She considered that the prosecutor was liable for the excessive delays in the investigation which had triggered the expiry of the limitation period for the crime committed against her. 29.  On 27 August 2008 the Bucharest District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The court held that because the limitation period for criminal responsibility in the case had expired it could not rule on the applicant’s claim for compensation. It further held that the applicant could bring such a claim before the civil courts. The judgment became final on 15 October 2008 when an appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Bucharest County Court.