5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Kharkiv. 6.  On 18 May 2002 Mr Igor Zubkov, the applicant’s son (born in 1961), was riding a bicycle and collided with a minibus at a crossroads in Kharkiv. 7.  On the same day the police examined the scene of the accident and prepared a vehicular accident inspection report, taking relevant measurements. They also questioned the driver of the minibus and his passenger. 8.  On 20 May 2002 the applicant’s son died as a result of his injuries. 9.  On 21 May 2002 the local police instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the violation of traffic safety rules which had resulted in the victim’s death. In the subsequent period a number of investigative measures were taken, including questioning witnesses, staging a reconstruction of events, and conducting expert examinations. 10.  On 25 September 2002 a police investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. The investigator also noted that the accident was caused by the cyclist himself. 11.  On 25 October 2002 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision, finding that it had been taken prematurely. It noted, in particular, that in the course of the investigation the attesting witnesses, who had been present during the examination of the scene of the accident and the preparation of the vehicular accident inspection report, had to be questioned; that a statement by the victim’s relatives contesting the veracity of that report had to be annexed to the file and examined; and that an additional auto-technical expert examination (автотехнічна експертиза) had to be conducted. 12.  Following the additional investigative measures, on 18 April 2003 the police investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. The investigator concluded that the accident had taken place as a result of the negligent and careless behaviour of the cyclist. 13.  On 14 May 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision, noting, inter alia, that the instructions given by the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office had not been followed in full. The investigation was resumed. 14.  On 15 September 2003 the police investigator terminated the criminal proceedings, finding that the additional investigation did not disclose any elements of a criminal offence on the part of the minibus driver who could not avoid colliding with the cyclist. 15.  On 5 November 2003 a supervising prosecutor quashed that decision, finding that not all the investigative measures had been taken in order to carry out a full, comprehensive and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. He specified that it would be necessary to question witnesses and carry out an auto-technical expert examination of the bicycle. 16.  On 26 February 2004 the police investigator, having taken the additional investigative measures, concluded that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. The investigation was therefore closed. 17.  On 1 July 2004 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered a further investigation. He noted, in particular, that it would be necessary to carry out new reconstructions of events and a more thorough auto-technical expert examination. 18.  Following the additional investigative measures, on 24 January 2005 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. 19.  On 14 February 2005 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision, noting that it had been taken prematurely. He instructed the investigator to examine the arguments advanced by the victim’s relatives, who disagreed with the results of the expert examinations. 20.  On 11 September 2006 the police investigator found that there had been no elements of a criminal offence on the part of the minibus driver and that therefore the criminal proceedings had to be terminated. 21.  On 23 October 2006 the supervising police authorities, having regard to the arguments advanced by the victim’s relatives, quashed that decision as having been taken prematurely, and ordered a further investigation. 22.  By a decision of 30 December 2007 the investigation was closed once again for lack of corpus delicti. The investigator found that the minibus driver did not violate any traffic rules and could not avoid colliding with the cyclist. On 11 March 2008 the applicant was sent a copy of that decision. 23.  On 30 March 2012 the applicant challenged the decision of 30 December 2007 before the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”). 24.  On 24 April 2012 the District Court dismissed the complaint as unfounded. The applicant appealed against that decision. 25.  On 24 May 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 24 April 2012 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination. The court of appeal noted in particular, that the conclusions reached by the investigator had not been properly substantiated by the material in the criminal case file and that the District Court had failed to give appropriate reasons for dismissing the applicant’s complaint. 26.  On 11 July 2012 the District Court quashed the decision of 30 December 2007 as unsubstantiated and ordered a further investigation. The District Court specified that during the investigation, it would be necessary to scrutinise the arguments put forward by the applicant, to assess the statements of certain witnesses properly and to carry out another auto-technical expert examination. The parties did not inform the Court whether that decision became final. Nor did they inform the Court about any further steps taken in the investigation.