5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and now lives in Israel. He owns ninety-nine per cent of the shares in Jason Development Enterprises Ltd (hereafter the “JDE”), a company registered in Ukraine. 6.  On 27 September 1997 the Vadul-Syretska Customs Service of the State Customs Department of Ukraine conducted a customs check of the coffee-tilling goods supplied by the Jason Industries company (the company owned by the applicant) as a contributory to the statutory fund of the joint‑stock company, JDE. The customs check showed that a cargo-customs declaration had been made by the representatives of JDE on the basis of false documents. On 29 September 1997 the Vadul-Syretska Customs Service initiated a criminal investigation into alleged smuggling and fraud offences. 7.  On the same date, the case was transferred to the prosecution service of the Chernivtsi Region (hereafter “the prosecution”) for further investigation. On the basis of resolutions of the prosecution of 10 and 20 October 1997, 18 November 1997 and 19 January 1998, the Vadul-Syretska Customs Service seized documents pertaining to the financial and commercial activities of JDE. 8.  On 13 October 1997 the prosecution seized the goods supplied to the statutory fund of JDE as evidence and on 16 October 1997 it froze JDE’s accounts. It also seized all of the company’s documentation, including accounting books and copies of contracts, as well as other property belonging to the company and the applicant. 9.  On 28 January 1998 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the “CCU”). 10.  On 30 January 1998 the prosecution ordered the applicant’s detention on remand in view of the pending criminal investigation against him. 11.  On 4 February 1998 the prosecution charged the applicant with smuggling (Article 70 of the CCU), financial fraud (Article 148-5 CCU) and fraud committed by an official (Article 172(2) CCU). 12.  On 5 February 1998 the prosecutor extended the deadline for the investigation by four months. 13.  On 17 March 1998 the prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention on remand by four months. 14.  On 6 April 1998 the prosecutor extended the deadline for investigation by five months and fourteen days. 15.  On 9 June 1998 the applicant was additionally charged with tax evasion (Article 148-2(2) CCU) and deliberate use of a forged document (Article 194(2) CCU). 16.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant was notified about the completion of the investigation. 17.  On 30 January 1999 the deputy prosecutor approved the bill of indictment issued by the investigating officer. 18.  On 3 February 1999 the case file was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Chernivtsi (the “District Court”). 19.  On 29 June 1999 the District Court ordered the prosecution to conduct an additional investigation into the circumstances of the case since the investigation was incomplete. In the course of the proceedings the applicant lodged a motion with the District Court, seeking his release. His motion was rejected by the District Court since there was a risk that he might abscond. 20.  In July 1999 the prosecution sought the annulment of the remittal decision before the Chernivtsi Regional Court (the “Regional Court”) on the ground that there was already sufficient corroborating evidence. 21.  On 10 August 1999 the Regional Court rejected the prosecution’s application, considering that it was necessary to undertake additional investigations in order to reconstruct the crime. 22.  On 25 August 1999 the applicant was released from detention on the basis of the resolution of the prosecution’s investigator. The applicant was required not to leave his place of residence. 23.  On 22 September 1999 the applicant’s recognisance not to abscond was changed to an undertaking to appear before the investigating authorities and the court. On the same date, the criminal investigation against the applicant was suspended due to the issue of a search warrant against Ms Lodyanova (a suspect in the case). 24.  In September 1999 JDE instituted proceedings in the District Court against the Government of Ukraine, the Chernivtsi Regional Administration and the prosecution, seeking the return of its property and documents. 25.  On 15 September 1999 the District Court, by a letter addressed to JDE, stated that it would not consider the complaints directed against the legal entities as it had no jurisdiction over them. 26.  On 1 October 1999 the District Court, following JDE’s additional submissions, refused to consider the complaints against the Government of Ukraine and the prosecution service, on the ground that the complaints were outside its jurisdiction. It also held that the State arbitration courts had jurisdiction in the matter. 27.  On 27 October 1999 the Regional Court allowed JDE’s cassation appeal, quashed the ruling of 1 October 1999 and remitted the case for reconsideration by the same court. 28.  On 3 November 1999 the District Court suspended the proceedings in the case due to JDE’s failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure for the introduction of the complaints (Article 137 of the Code). The court gave JDE until 16 November 1999 to rectify the mistakes. 29.  On 17 November 1999 the District Court refused to consider JDE’s claims because of its failure to comply with the ruling of 3 November 1999. On 1 December 1999 the Regional Court upheld this decision. 30.  On 14 December 1999 JDE lodged further complaints against the Government of Ukraine, the Chernivtsi Regional State Administration and the Prosecution Service of the Chernivtsi Region. 31.  On 6 January 2000 the District Court left JDE’s complaints without consideration on account of its failure to comply with the formal requirements of Article 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the introduction of complaints. JDE was given until 14 January 2000 to rectify the mistakes. 32.  On 17 January 2000 the District Court refused to consider JDE’s complaints due to its failure to comply with the ruling of 6 January 2000. 33.  On 2 February 2000 the Regional Court quashed the ruling of 17 January 2000 and remitted the case for consideration on the merits to the same court. 34.  On 24 April 2000 the District Court rejected JDE’s motion concerning compensation for moral and material damage caused to JDE by the Government of Ukraine, the Chernivtsi Regional State Administration and the Prosecution Service of Ukraine. In particular, it found that JDE’s complaints amounted to a separate claim, which had to be lodged with the court in compliance with Article 137 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 35.  On 25 April 2000 the District Court, in the course of a hearing in the presence of the parties, refused to consider JDE’s claims for the return of property and documents as being outside the courts’ jurisdiction, in accordance with Articles 227-1 and 248-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also decided to terminate the proceedings in the case. 36.  On 31 May 2000 the Regional Court upheld this decision. In particular, it stated that, for the time-being, JDE’s claims could not be determined in civil proceedings. It also noted that a different procedure for their consideration existed in the domestic law. 37.  In May 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court against the prosecution, demanding termination of the criminal investigation against him. On 2 June 2000 the District Court rejected his claims as being outside the court’s jurisdiction under Article 248-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, it specified that the applicant had not availed himself of a special procedure for lodging complaints against acts of the investigator carried out in the course of the pre-trial investigation. 38.  On 20 July 2000 the criminal investigation was terminated on account of lack of corroborating evidence. 39.  On 19 September 2000 the deputy prosecutor quashed the resolution of 20 July 2000 due to the investigating officer’s failure to comply with the District Court’s instructions of 29 June 1999 (see paragraph 19 above). The prosecution remitted the case for additional investigations. 40.  On 22 November 2001 the District Court passed a resolution authorising the apprehension of Ms Lodyanova. 41.  On 7 December 2001 the prosecution informed the applicant that the criminal charges against him were still being investigated. 42.  The criminal investigation is currently suspended due to the nation-wide search for Ms Lodyanova.