CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 2019

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 14 February 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 47921/08 Tayisa Denisovna AZYUKOVSKA against Ukraine lodged on 17 September 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged delay in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 26 May 2005 the applicant, an engineer employed by a State-owned telecom company, was arrested for having accepted a sum of money in an inappropriate fashion from a manager of a company which had dealings with her employer. She was then released under an undertaking not to abscond. The proceedings against her were discontinued on 7 June 2005, 29   December 2008 and 6 July 2009 but repeatedly resumed. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the first discontinuation decision until it was quashed and proceedings were resumed. She remained under the impression that the proceedings remained pending and the undertaking not to abscond remained imposed on her throughout the period. The criminal proceedings against her were eventually discontinued on 14   September 2009. However, they were then reopened on her own insistence and definitively terminated on 4 March 2011. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 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? In particular: 1.     What parts of the period from 26 May 2005 to 14 September 2009 should be taken into account in the Court’s assessment of the length of proceedings (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Skorobogatova v.   Russia , no.   33914/02, §§ 39-51, 1 December 2005; Yankov and Manchev v.   Bulgaria , nos.   27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 5-7 and 17-19, 22 October 2009; and Prescher v. Bulgaria , no.   6767/04, §§ 33 and 34, 7 June 2011)? 2.     Was the applicant informed of the decision to discontinue proceedings in her respect taken on 7 June 2005? If so, when and in what manner?