15 DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS JUDGMENT The Court agrees with the Commission that as regards litigation involving opposing private interests, "equality of arms" implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case including his evidence - under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. It is left to the national authorities to ensure in each individual case that the requirements of a "fair hearing" are met. 34. In the instant case, it was incumbent upon the applicant company to prove that there was an oral agreement between it and the Bank to extend certain credit facilities. Only two persons had been present at the meeting at which this agreement had allegedly been reached, namely Mr van Reijendam representing the applicant company and Mr van W. representing the Bank. Yet only one of these two key persons was permitted to be heard, namely the person who had represented the Bank. The applicant company was denied the possibility of calling the person who had represented it, because the Court of Appeal identified him with the applicant company itself. 35. During the relevant negotiations Mr van Reijendam and Mr van W. acted on an equal footing, both being empowered to negotiate on behalf of their respective parties. It is therefore difficult to see why they should not both have been allowed to give evidence. The applicant company was thus placed at a substantial disadvantage visà-vis the Bank and there has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) 36. According to Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention, "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." A. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 37. In its memorial the applicant company sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage without specifying exact amounts. In subsequent documents setting out its claims in greater detail, Dombo stated that it did not consider them to be ready for decision. In its view, it was necessary for the pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the Bank’s actions complained of and the damage resulting from the dismissal of its claims by the national courts to be assessed by accountants; such an assessment would also provide an indication of the extent of the nonpecuniary damage suffered.