4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mykolayiv. 5.  On 21 February 2001 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, co-founder of a private company S., on suspicion of embezzlement. In particular, the applicant was accused of having misappropriated the funds of the company S. 6.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant was charged with embezzlement. He gave an undertaking not to abscond. 7.  On 27 July 2001 the prosecutors completed the investigations, issued an indictment and sent the case to the Bilozerka Court for trial. 8.  On 10 September 2001 the prosecutors refused the applicant's request to institute criminal proceedings against M., a co-founder of the same company, on charges of embezzlement of the company's property. 9.  On 22 October 2001 the Bilozerka Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a prohibition on holding managerial positions for two years. It ordered the applicant's placement in detention pending the judgment's entry into force. 10.  On 26 February 2002 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 22 October 2001 and sent the case for additional investigations. It found that the prosecutors and the first-instance court had failed to investigate and assess all the circumstances of the case and that the court had not provided the applicant with a translation of the judgment. The Court of Appeal also ordered the applicant's release. 11.  On 1 July 2002 the prosecutors changed the charges against the applicant and accused him of arbitrary behaviour. 12.  On 21 October 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kherson Region quashed the ruling of 1 July 2002 and stated that the charges against the applicant should be qualified as embezzlement. 13.  Between 29 November 2002 and 28 March 2005 the applicant was put under an undertaking not to abscond. 14.  On 17 December 2003 the prosecutors re-qualified the charges against the applicant as arbitrary behaviour. 15.  On 28 March 2005 the Bilozirka Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for the absence of a victim's complaint. 16.  On 26 July 2005 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 28 March 2005. It found that the criminal case on charges of arbitrary behaviour should be terminated, that the case against the applicant should be examined on the charges of embezzlement and ordered further investigation. 17.  On 6 September 2005 and 16 February 2006 the Supreme Court left the applicant's appeal in cassation without examination as the decision of 26 July 2005 was not subject to appeal in cassation. 18.  On 8 February 2006 the prosecutors discontinued the criminal proceedings on charges of embezzlement for lack of proof. 19.  On 27 March 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office quashed the decision of 8 February 2006 and ordered further investigations. 20.  On 12 July 2006 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv quashed the decision of 27 March 2006 and upheld the decision of 8 February 2006. 21.  On 2 June 2007 the prosecutors discontinued the proceedings instituted against the applicant on suspicion of arbitrary behaviour. 22.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bilozirka Court against M. and S. seeking the division of the property of the company S. and the recovery of his property share. 23.  On 10 January 2002 the Bilozirka Court rejected the applicant's claims. 24.  On 18 June 2003 and 24 September 2004, respectively, the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the judgment of 10 January 2002.