CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13500/18 Mariya Ivanivna TYMCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 6 March 2018 communicated on 25 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the   Convention about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her brother, including after his death (for about eighteen years in total). In June 2006 criminal proceedings on charges of property misappropriation, money laundering and forgery in office were initiated against the applicant’s brother, B.T., a former private business director. On   1   April 2014, after numerous trial rounds and the eventual remittal of the case for further pre-trial investigation, B.T. died. The criminal proceedings were discontinued on that ground twice: on 29   September 2014 and 29 March 2018. Both those decisions were, however, quashed (on 17   June 2015 and 1   June 2018, respectively) following complaints by the applicant, B.T.’s heir, who insisted that the proceedings should terminate by the rehabilitation of her deceased brother. According to the applicant, the proceedings remain pending at the pre-trial investigation stage, without any tangible progress.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant have   locus standi , for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, to lodge the present application in so far as it concerns her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her deceased brother (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 48, ECHR 2009)? If so:   2.     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   Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)?