Communicated on 2 October 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 45240/09 Nina Zakharivna DOROGYKH against Ukraine lodged on 3 August 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nina Zakharivna Dorogykh , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Kozyatyn .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 17 December 1994 several individuals attacked the applicant ’ s brother, robbed him and beat him up. The applicant ’ s brother died shortly afterwards because of the injuries sustained.

On 18 December 1994 the police launched criminal investigation into the incident.

On an unspecified date the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party and lodged with the authorities and the courts dealing with the case several claims for compensation on account of her brother ’ s death.

Following several reconsiderations of the case, on 26 September 2008 the Kozyatyn Town Court terminated the criminal proceedings, having found that the limitation period for the crimes under investigation had expired.

By decisions of 29 October 2008 and 26 May 2009, the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeals against the decision of 26 September 2008, having found, in essence, that the proceedings had been terminated on lawful grounds.

Consequently, the applicant ’ s civil action remained unexamined.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention on account of the allegedly excessive length of the impugned proceedings, their termination and the resulting failure to examine her civil action.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, 27 June 2000, and Dimitras v. Greece , no. 11946/11 , § § 53-56, 19 April 2018 )?

2. Has there been an infringement of the applicant ’ s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that her civil claims raised in the framework of the criminal proceedings were not examined on the merits (see Anagnostopoulos v. Greece , no. 54589/00, §§ 31-32, 3 April 2003; Atanasova v. Bulgaria , no . 72001/01, §§ 45-47, 2 October 2008; and Rokas v. Greece , no. 55081/09, § 24, 22 September 2015)?