5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dubno. 6.  The applicant was the principal of a private school in the town of Dubno, in the Rivne Region. 7.  On 30 March 2000 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for failure to comply with a court decision ordering the reinstatement of a teacher at the private school. 8.  According to the applicant, at about 9.00 a.m. on 29 May 2000 officers from Dubno police broke down the front door of the applicant’s house. Inside the house, an investigator from the Dubno inter-district prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant to go to his office for questioning. When the applicant refused, the investigator asked the police officers to ensure her compulsory appearance for questioning. The police officers allegedly beat the applicant, twisted her arms behind her back and forced her out of the house barefoot. They placed her in a police car and took her to the office of the investigator. At about 1 p.m. on 29 May 2000 the applicant was released. 9.  On the next day, 30 May 2000, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted that there were injuries on her shoulders. 10.  On 9 April 2001 the Dubno inter-district prosecutor’s office discontinued the investigation into the applicant’s criminal case, having regard to the insignificance of her offence. 11.  On 2 August 2001 the Dubno Town Court quashed the decision of 9 April 2001 as unfounded and ordered that there be further investigation. 12.  On 14 August 2001 the investigation was completed and the case file was referred to the Dubno Town Court for trial. 13.  On 30 January 2004 and 13 March 2006 the Dubno Town Court issued judgments in the applicant’s case, which were quashed as unfounded by the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal. 14.  On 30 January 2007 the Dubno Town Court convicted the applicant of failure to comply with a court decision, and decided that it was appropriate to punish her with a fine. However, ultimately it released the applicant from the punishment, as the statute of limitation had expired. 15.  On 17 April 2007 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the judgment of 30 January 2007. 16.  On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal by the applicant on points of law, on the grounds that she had failed to comply with procedural rules when submitting it. 17.  On 2 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Rivne regional prosecutor’s office regarding the events of 29 May 2000 (see paragraph 8 above). She was examined by a medical expert, who found that she had sustained five bruises to her shoulders and had injured her left shoulder ligaments. The expert stated that the injuries had been caused by blunt solid objects; they could have been sustained in the circumstances described by the applicant. 18.  On 30 June 2000 the Rivne regional prosecutor’s office, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence. 19.  On 20 March 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Prosecutor General’s Office reversed the decision of 30 June 2000 as unsubstantiated, and ordered an additional inquiry. The applicant was not informed of the decision taken within the additional inquiry. In 2016 the Office of the Government Agent was informed that the file on those inquiries had been destroyed, along with other files relating to the same period, after the expiry of the statutory period for keeping such records. 20.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Dubno Town Court, seeking damages for the violation of the inviolability of her home and her unlawful arrest and ill-treatment on 29 May 2000. 21.  On 9 July 2007 the Dubno Town Court found that on 29 May 2000 the applicant had been ill-treated and unlawfully taken from her home to the investigator’s office. The court found that the authorities had acted unlawfully and that they had violated her right to the inviolability of her home, right to liberty and right to respect for human dignity. The court awarded the applicant 500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH – approximately 73 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 22.  On 26 May 2008 the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 9 July 2007. 23.  The applicant appealed on points of law, contesting the amount of the award. 24.  On 8 May 2009 the Higher Administrative Court found that the appeal had not been prepared in a proper way. That court set a time-limit within which the applicant could rectify shortcomings in her appeal on points of law. 25.  On 13 July 2009 the Higher Administrative Court returned the applicant’s appeal without examining it on the merits, after finding that she had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for submitting appeals.