CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 December 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38262/10 Antonina Anatoliyivna SVIRGUNETS against Ukraine lodged on 25 June 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns: (1)     the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of bribe taking (from 14 May 2002 to 28 January 2012, with several remittals for additional pre-trial investigation and re-trials; outcome: discontinuation of proceedings by the prosecution authorities at the pre-trial investigation stage on the ground that there was no evidence of the applicant’s guilt); (2)     the applicant’s inability to get back the property confiscated from her within those proceedings (28/100 of a shop owned by her at the time, which she estimated at about 150,000 euros or to obtain any compensation in that regard after the proceedings against her had eventually been discontinued (the applicant’s claims for damages both against the State authorities and the new owner of the property in question were unsuccessful). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Merit v. Ukraine , no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the confiscation of her property within the criminal proceedings and her inability to get compensation for it after the charges against her had eventually been dropped for want of evidence of her guilt? The parties are requested to provide proof of the extent of the applicant’s ownership of the confiscated property as well as a valuation of that property supported by relevant documentation.