Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1. The MTCA argues that intervention at this stage is untimely and would prejudice them because the case is in an advanced stage. The mere passage of time, however, does not render an application untimely. Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates, 844 F.2d 1050, 1056 (3d Cir.1988); Wright & Miller, supra, § 1916 at 425-26. While four years had elapsed before the Seipels filed their motion to intervene, the critical inquiry is: what proceedings of substance on the merits have occurred? See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 695 F.2d at 500 (“a motion to intervene after an entry of a decree should be denied except in extraordinary circumstances.”) (emphasis added). Cf. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 2292, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975) . This is because the stage of the proceeding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings
B. holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court the principles of younger v harris should apply in full force
C. holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings
D. holding that declaratory relief is improper when a prosecution involving the challenged state statute is pending in state court at the time the federal suit is initiated and the same principles that govern the propriety of federal injunctions of state criminal proceedings govern the issuance of federal declaratory judgments in connection with such proceedings
E. holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffsafter the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place  the principles of younger v harris 401 us 37 91 sct 746 27 led2d 669 1971  apply in full force
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.