5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Shostka. 6.  On 13 November 2003 the applicant’s wife died as a result of a traffic accident caused by Mr V. whose car collided with a horse-drawn carriage in which the applicant’s wife was travelling. The police examined the scene of the accident immediately. The medical examination of Mr V. was also conducted. 7.  On 17 November 2003 the Shostka District Police Department instituted a criminal investigation into the road traffic accident. 8.  On 27 December 2003, after a number of forensic medical examinations and on the basis of witnesses’ testimonies, the investigative officer terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground that it was impossible to establish who was responsible for the accident. On 4 February 2004 the investigative officer of the Shostka District Police Department decided to resume the investigation on account of its incompleteness and the necessity to conduct further investigative actions. 9.  Between February 2004 and April 2005 six more decisions to discontinue the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the driver’s actions were taken (on 5 February, 5 March, 15 April, 17 August, 7 October, 23 December 2004). All of them were subsequently quashed and the criminal proceedings have accordingly been reopened by decisions of the Police Officer of the Shostka District Police Department (on 3 March and 1 April, 11 June, 6 October, 10 November 2004, 1 March 2005) with reference to the incompleteness of the investigation. The latter authority referred, in particular, to the failure of the inquiring officers to question additional witnesses and to reconcile factual discrepancies between the experts’ conclusions and the accounts of some witnesses, the completion of technical examinations, including reconstruction of the events. 10.  On 11 July 2004 the applicant was recognised as being a victim and a civil plaintiff in the criminal case and on 5 January 2005 he lodged a civil claim, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage within the context of the criminal proceedings. 11.  On 27 April 2005 the Police Officer of the Shostka District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the car driver Mr V. On 1 July 2005 the indictment against Mr V. was prepared by the Shostka District Prosecutor’s Office. On 5 July 2005 the criminal case was referred to the Shostka Local Court for consideration on the merits. On 29 August 2005 the Shostka Local Court allowed the prosecutor’s request and decided that the case should be remitted for additional investigation to Shostka District Prosecutor’s Office on account of the incompleteness of the investigation. 12.  On 18 March 2006 the Shostka District Police Department terminated the proceedings against Mr V. for lack of evidence of his involvement in the crime. On 20 March 2007 the prosecutor quashed the resolution regarding the termination of the proceedings in the case, having found that additional investigation was required. 13.  On 19 April 2007 the investigator of the Shostka Prosecutor’s Office terminated criminal proceedings against Mr V. for lack of evidence against him. On 1 July 2008 this resolution was quashed and the case was remitted for additional investigation. 14.  On 24 July 2008 the Shostka Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against Mr V. On 11 August 2008 the criminal case was referred to the Shostka Local Court for consideration on the merits. 15.  On 12 March 2011 the Shostka Local Court sentenced Mr V. to five years’ imprisonment combined with a driving ban for three years and awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicant and other victims (two more persons were injured in the traffic accident). 16.  On 28 July 2011 the Sumy Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 12 March 2011, terminated the criminal proceedings and amnestied Mr V. It also left civil claims without examination, indicating that they could be examined in the context of civil proceedings. 17.  On 29 August 2011 the applicant instituted separate civil proceedings against Mr V. 18.  On 29 March 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the decision of the appellate court in the criminal case against Mr V. 19.  On 8 January 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the Sumy Court of Appeal of 15 August 2012 allowing the applicant’s civil claim and ordering payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages relating to his wife’s death in the amount of UAH 10,774.32. It appears that the decision of the Court of Appeal has not been fully enforced due to lack of funds of Mr V. and the impossibility of selling his property. On 28 November 2014 the decision was partly enforced and the applicant was paid pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages in the amount of UAH 1,942.