LETELLIER v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 19 appeals filed by Mrs Letellier herself on procedural issues: in thirteen months and three weeks the indictments divisions gave three decisions and the Court of Cassation two; the time which it took for these decisions to be delivered was in no way excessive and could not be criticised because it was in fact the result of the systematic use of remedies available under French law. 56. The Court has certain doubts about the overall length of the examination of the second application for release, in particular before the indictments divisions called upon to rule after a previous decision had been quashed in the Court of Cassation; it should however be borne in mind that the applicant retained the right to submit a further application at any time. Indeed from 14 February 1986 to 5 August 1987 she lodged six other applications, which were all dealt with in periods of from eight to twenty days (see paragraph 23 above). 57. There has therefore been no violation of Article 5 § 4 (art. 5-4). III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) 58. According to Article 50 (art. 50), "If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party." Under this provision, the applicant claimed compensation for damage and the reimbursement of costs. A. Damage 59. Mrs Letellier sought in the first place 10,000 francs in respect of nonpecuniary damage and 435,000 francs for pecuniary damage; the latter amount was said to represent half the turnover which her bar-restaurant could have achieved between her arrest and the verdict of the assize court. 60. The Government did not perceive any causal connection between the alleged breaches and the pecuniary damage resulting for the applicant from her deprivation of liberty, which she would in any case have had to undergo once convicted. Furthermore, they considered that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient reparation for the non-pecuniary damage. 61. The Delegate of the Commission expressed the view that she should be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage and, if appropriate, pecuniary damage, but did not put forward any figure. 62. The Court dismisses the application for pecuniary damage, because the pre-trial detention was deducted in its entirety from the sentence. As to