5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine. 6.  At 6 p.m. on 14 April 1998 the applicant and K. were apprehended by police officers Kh., Ko. and L. at a trolleybus stop and taken to the police station. Kh. later testified that the applicant and K. had been apprehended because they had been fighting with other young men, who had run off. 7.  In the police station Kh. told the applicant to sit down. He then attached the applicant by handcuffs to a metal ring in the wall and sprayed him in the face with tear gas. Kh. then kicked the applicant in the chest and hit him several times on the head, neck and back. Kh. later produced written accounts, allegedly given by private individuals B. and Kl., stating that the applicant had behaved violently and that that was the reason for his apprehension. On the following morning the applicant was released. 8.  The applicant was in hospital between 16 April and 19 May 1998. He was diagnosed with concussion, body and chest injuries and a fractured bone in his neck. 9.  On 9 January 2002 the applicant was recorded as falling into the third category of disability (the mildest) on account of the injuries he had received. 10.  In April 1998 the applicant requested the institution of criminal proceedings against Kh. 11.  Between April and December 1998 various persons were questioned by the prosecutor’s office. In the meantime, on 5 June 1998 the police officially informed the applicant that he had been arrested for being drunk and molesting passers-by. On an unidentified date he was also informed that the police officers’ actions had been lawful. In August 1998 the police issued a certificate stating that no force had been used on the applicant («меры физического воздействия не применялись»). 12.  On 29 October 1998 a forensic medical examination concluded that the applicant had sustained traumatic oedema on his neck, chest and hands, bruises on one hand and his chest, a closed craniocerebral injury, concussion and some broken bones in the neck. The injuries were classified as grievous bodily harm endangering life at the moment of infliction. They could have been inflicted in the circumstances described by the applicant. 13.  On 8 December 1998 the Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the infliction of grievous bodily harm on the applicant (по факту заподіяння тяжких тілесних ушкоджень). 14.  On 14 December 1998 the applicant was given the status of victim. 15.  A forensic medical examination carried out in January 1999 reached similar conclusions to the one of 29 October 1998. 16.  On 30 March 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against Kh. and joined to the criminal case instituted on 8 December 1998. Kh. was charged with infliction of grievous bodily harm, abuse of power with grave consequences, and forgery. According to the Government, on the same date the applicant lodged within criminal proceedings a civil claim against Kh. 17.  On the same date it was decided not to institute criminal proceedings against Ko. and L. It was also decided that there was no evidence that the applicant and K. had resisted the police in any way. 18.  In April 1999 the criminal case against Kh. was transferred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv. 19.  Between May 1999 and September 2000 seven court hearings were scheduled but all of them were postponed for various reasons (hearing scheduled on a public holiday, judge being busy on another case, “for technical reasons”, Kh. failing to appear twice, victim and witnesses failing to appear). 20.  Between September 2000 and August 2001 eleven court hearings took place and two were postponed because the judge was ill. 21.  On 23 August 2001 the court sentenced Kh. to five years’ conditional imprisonment, with three years’ probation, for infliction of grievous bodily harm, abuse of power, and forgery. Kh. was also prohibited from occupying “particular positions” in the police for five years and had to pay a fine of 300 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). The applicant was awarded UAH 12,261.43 (at the material time around 2,526 euros (EUR)) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 22.  On the same date the court adopted a separate ruling by which it informed the Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor that the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior had not properly examined the applicant’s complaints and that witnesses Kho., Ko. and Ch. (police officers) had made false statements in court. In particular, these witnesses had testified that the applicant had himself hit the wall with his head and that the gas and handcuffs had been used in order to restrain him. The court found these statements to be untrue as they contradicted other evidence in the case. 23.  On 3 December 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 23 August 2001, finding that the sentence was too lenient, and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court. 24.  On 25 December 2001 the case was received by the Dzerzhynskyy District Court and a court hearing was scheduled for 16 April 2002. 25.  On 16 April 2002 the hearing did not take place since “a lawyer had failed to appear”. 26.  Between April 2002 and October 2003 six more hearings were postponed, the judge being busy in another case, on vacation or ill. On one occasion the hearing was postponed because Kh.’s lawyer had failed to appear. 27.  On 15 October 2003 the conclusion of the previous forensic medical examination was confirmed. 28.  Between October 2003 and May 2005 seven court hearings took place, four hearings were postponed as witnesses had failed to appear or the judge was ill or on vacation, and four hearings were postponed at the applicant’s request or because of the applicant’s failure to appear. 29.  On 10 May 2005 the Dzerzhynskiy District Court found Kh. guilty of abuse of power and forgery, and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, but dispensed him from serving the sentence. 30.  On 18 October 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Kyivskiy District Court of Kharkiv for fresh consideration. The court also adopted three separate rulings. It informed the Kharkiv Regional Council of Judges that the judges at the Dzerzhynskiy District Court had delayed the consideration of the case and failed to take into account that Kh. had also been accused of the infliction of grievous bodily harm. In particular, the court stated that since 14 April 1999 six judges had been replaced and for a total of four years no action had been taken in the case. The court also noted that the prosecutor had failed to respond to the court’s separate ruling of 23 August 2001. 31.  On 3 July 2006 the Kyivskyy District Court sentenced Kh. to five years’ conditional imprisonment, with three years’ probation, for infliction of grievous bodily harm endangering life at the moment of infliction, and abuse of power. Kh. was also prohibited for three years from occupying positions which involved exercising State power. The charges concerning forgery were dismissed as time-barred. The court noted that Kh. had partially compensated the damage inflicted by him and had committed no further crimes. As additional mitigating circumstances, the court noted that Kh. was a carer for his partner’s minor son and had an aged mother. The applicant’s claim for damages was left unexamined since “the applicant would amend it”. The applicant did not appeal against the decision. 32.  In March 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Kharkiv Main Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior and the State Treasury of Ukraine, claiming UAH 121,599 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and UAH 1,052.87 in respect of pecuniary damage. 33.  On 2 April 2008 the Kyivskyy District Court found against the applicant. 34.  On 24 June 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 35.  On 25 March 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of 24 June 2008 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Court of Appeal. 36.  On 11 June 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 2 April 2008 and awarded the applicant UAH 80,000 (at the material time approximately EUR 7,600) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and UAH 1,052.87 in respect of pecuniary damage. 37.  On 16 August 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected cassation appeals by the parties. 38.  By 28 January 2011 the decision of 11 June 2009 was enforced in full.