5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Zaporizhzhya. 6.  On the afternoon of 21 July 2001 the applicant was beaten up by another individual. The incident took place at the market and was observed by numerous witnesses. 7.  The applicant was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right cheekbone and bruise to the right infraorbital region. Subsequently, he was also diagnosed with an injury to the right knee joint. 8.  On 22 November 2001 the applicant complained to the police on account of his injuries. On the same date a police officer referred the applicant to a forensic examination centre to have the seriousness of his injuries assessed. 9.  On 29 November 2001 a forensic medical expert completed the examination and stated that the applicant had suffered from complete ruptures of the cruciate ligament and tibial collateral ligament in his right knee; a fractured right cheekbone and a bruise on the face. The injuries were classified as being of medium severity. 10.  On 1 December 2001 a police investigator opened criminal proceedings in connection with the injuries sustained by the applicant. 11.  On 4 December 2001 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an aggrieved party. On the same date he was granted the status of civil claimant. 12.  On 7 June 2002 the investigator suspended the proceedings for the reason that the individual who had inflicted injuries on the applicant could not be identified. 13.  On 13 June 2002 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision as unsubstantiated and ordered further investigation. 14.  On 6 August 2002 the investigator opened a criminal case against R., a private individual, noting that during an altercation between R. and the applicant on 21 June 2001 the latter had sustained injuries. 15.  On 6 September 2002 the investigator terminated the proceedings against R. for lack of corpus delicti. 16.  On 16 October 2002 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision as unlawful, noting that the investigator had failed to properly assess the witness evidence suggesting that R. had inflicted injuries on the applicant. The prosecutor therefore ordered further investigation. 17.  On 20 November 2002 the investigator suspended the proceedings for the reason that the individual who had inflicted injuries on the applicant could not be identified. 18.  On 18 April 2005 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 20 November 2002 as unfounded and ordered further investigation. 19.  On 6 February 2006 the proceedings were again suspended on the ground that the individual who had inflicted injuries on the applicant could not be identified. 20.  On 30 March 2006 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered further investigation. 21.  By letter of 31 August 2006 the police informed the applicant that the investigator deserved a disciplinary penalty for the delays in the investigation of the case; however, he had been dismissed by that time. 22.  On 17 October 2007 the investigator obtained from R. a written undertaking not to abscond. 23.  On 26 October 2007 R. was charged with the crime of inflicting medium severity injuries on the applicant. On the same date the applicant was once again granted the status of civil claimant and his civil claim was added to the file. 24.  On 28 May 2008 the Prosecutor of the Komunarskyy District of Zaporizhzhya approved the investigator’s decision to apply to the court for the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against R. as time-barred. 25.  On 10 June 2008 the Komunarskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the District Court”) terminated the proceedings against R. as time-barred. It further noted that the civil claim was to be considered in the course of separate civil proceedings. On the same date the District Court issued a separate ruling informing the Prosecutor of the Komunarskyy District of Zaporizhzhya that the investigation had been needlessly delayed. 26.  On 20 August 2008 the decision to close the proceedings as time-barred was upheld by the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). On the same date the Court of Appeal issued a separate ruling informing the Prosecutor of the Zaporizhzhya Region that the investigation had been unnecessarily and inordinately delayed. It considered that the protraction of the investigation had occurred because of a lack of control on the part of the prosecutor. 27.  In 2008 the applicant lodged a civil claim seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the injuries inflicted on him on 21 July 2001. 28.  On 19 March 2009 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered R. to pay 2,808.25[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in respect of pecuniary damage and UAH 2,500[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicant costs and expenses. The applicant appealed, arguing that the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage was insufficient. 29.  On 3 June 2009 the Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant’s appeal and increased the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage to UAH 7,000[3].