CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 18 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 29355/18 Tetyana Oleksiyivna LEV against Ukraine lodged on 8 June 2018 communicated on 31 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns a situation where the proceedings in the applicant’s criminal case are stalled because the case file is blocked in the area of Eastern Ukraine, outside the Ukrainian Government’s control. The applicant lived in Donetsk and worked at a State-owned university. In 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against her on suspicion that she had embezzled the university’s funds. In February 2011 the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave the   territory of Ukraine. In April 2014, when the criminal case against the applicant was pending before a first instance court, Donetsk was occupied by pro-Russian separatist forces. The case file was not transferred to the territory controlled by the Ukrainian Government. The applicant had been requesting the authorities on the Government controlled territory to restore the criminal case against her, to finish its examination and to lift the applicant’s obligation not to leave the country. Her requests were refused given that there was no legislation allowing to restore criminal proceedings which had not resulted in a conviction. Because of the obligation not to leave the territory of Ukraine the applicant cannot visit her son who lives abroad. She relies on Articles 6 and 8 of the   Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the prolonged failure to examine the applicant’s criminal case?   2.     Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article   2   § 2 of Protocol No.   4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   2   §   3 of Protocol No.   4?   3.     In so far as the applicant’s inability to visit her son is concerned, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the   Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?