copy of the Judgment by DHL mail. Thus, start date of the six (6) month time-limit under Rule 78(1) is set on 27 December 2021. 30. The Court notes that between the notification of the Judgment to the Applicant on 27 December 2021 and the filing of his Application for Review on 17 January 2022, a period of twenty-one (21) days elapsed. 31. The Court finds that the Applicant also complied with the six (6)-month-time-limit. 32. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Application for Review was filed timeously, in accordance with Rule 78(1) of the Rules. B. On new facts or evidence 33. The Applicant submits that the developments underlying his application for review relate to the Court's temporal jurisdiction (i), the Court's assertion that the Applicant had a remedy against the decision of the Civil Service Disciplinary Board (ii), the calculation of the duration of the domestic proceedings on the claims relating to his real estate (iii) and the determination of the amount of reparation for non-pecuniary damage suffered by himself and by members of his family (iv). i. Allegation of a new fact relating to the Court's temporal jurisdiction 34. The Applicant submits that in paragraph 31 of the Judgment of 2 December 2021, the Court introduced a new fact into the case by holding that the alleged violations of his right to equal protection before the law, the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself, the right to protection of the family, the right to be presumed innocent and the right to be tried within a reasonable time were committed before the date of entry into force of the Protocol in relation to the Respondent State, that is, before 24 January 2004. He submits that in his 10