5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Luhansk. She has had a first-degree disability since childhood. 6.  On 2 April 1998, during her time at the Slavyanoserbskiy Psychoneurological Asylum run by the Luhansk Regional Council (Слав’яносербський психоневрологічний інтернат Луганської обласної ради) (“the asylum”), another patient, B., inflicted grievous bodily harm on the applicant. Her injuries included concussion, a fractured jaw and nose, and numerous cuts on her face. Later she also lost the sight in her right eye and the sight in her left eye deteriorated which, according to the forensic examination report of 25 June 2007, was also due to the trauma sustained by the applicant on 2 April 1998. 7.  On 16 September 1998 B. died. 8.  On 8 May 1998 the Slavyanoserbskiy district prosecutor’s office of the Luhansk Region (прокуратура Слов’яносербського району Луганської області  “the prosecutor’s office”) refused to institute criminal proceedings against two asylum employees (orderlies), N. and L. When questioned about the incident, the orderlies testified that on the morning of 2 April 1998 they had been cleaning the rooms when they had heard someone crying. They had found the applicant on her bed with her face smashed. Other patients had told N. and L. that B. had beaten the applicant with a mop because she had hit B. The prosecutor noted that (i) B. was “without legal capacity because of a mental disorder” (недієздатна внаслідок психічного розладу) and thus could not be held criminally responsible for assaulting the applicant, and (ii) even though it appeared that orderlies N. and L. had been negligent in their duties (according to the asylum orderlies’ list of duties submitted by the Government they were not allowed to leave patients unsupervised), which could possibly constitute a crime under Article 167 of the 1960 Criminal Code (see paragraph 27 below), they were not considered to be “officials” who could be prosecuted under that provision. 9.  On 9 December 2004, within civil proceedings (see paragraphs 11–16 below), the applicant’s representative requested that the first-instance court reopen a criminal investigation into the incident. On the same date the request was rejected. The court noted that the prosecutor’s office had already issued a decision on 8 May 1998, which had not been appealed against. Moreover, B. had died and therefore, in accordance with the law in force, no criminal proceedings could be instituted against her. The ruling was upheld by the Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 3 August 2005 and 31 March 2006 respectively. 10.  Following the entry into force of a new Criminal Procedure Code, on 26 December 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the police, alleging negligence by the orderlies. The complaint was registered and two separate investigations launched into negligent performance of duties by members of the medical or pharmaceutical profession and negligence of duties by officials. On 19 February 2013 both investigations were merged. Several witnesses were questioned including the applicant, her mother and orderly L. The latter testified that she had not seen the incident take place but had later learned that for an unknown reason B. had hit the applicant with a mop left by L. in their room. On 30 June 2013 the proceedings were terminated by a police investigator of the Slyavyanoserbskyy District Police Department (слідчій слідчого відділу Слов’яносербського районного відділу ГУМВС України в Луганській області). That decision was identical to the one of 8 May 1998 (see paragraph 8 above) and referred to the investigator’s findings (i) that B. had been “without legal capacity because of a mental disorder” (недієздатна внаслідок психічного розладу) and thus could not be held responsible for assaulting the applicant, and (ii) that even though it appeared that the orderlies N. and L. had been negligent in their duties, which could constitute a crime under Article 167 (negligence of duties by officials) or Article 140 of the new 2001 Criminal Code (negligent performance of duties by members of the medical profession), they were not considered to be “officials” or “members of the medical profession” who could be prosecuted under those provisions of the law. 11.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the asylum in the Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Luhansk, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage (the cost of medications and food expenses incurred while staying in a hospital between 2 and 30 April 1998 and between 18 and 26 May 1998 and the costs of dental prosthesis care). The applicant claimed that following negligence on the part of the asylum employees L. and N. she had been beaten by B. The applicant also indicated that the asylum should not have placed B. in one room with the applicant since B. had been known for her violent behaviour. 12.  On 4 May 1999, at the request of a prosecutor, the court launched proceedings to establish the applicant’s legal capacity. Eight days later the consideration of the applicant’s claim for compensation was suspended pending the outcome of the legal capacity proceedings. 13.  On 9 October 2002 the legal capacity proceedings were terminated because the prosecutor failed to appear at the hearing. 14.  On 19 June 2003 the first-instance court ordered a medical examination of the applicant and the case was forwarded to the Luhansk Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. On 19 October 2004 the case was returned to the first-instance court with an expert report confirming that the applicant had sustained grievous bodily harm. 15.  On 3 October 2006 the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Luhansk awarded the applicant 30,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage (approximately 4,500 euros (EUR) at the material time). In a court hearing the asylum’s representative submitted that in his view the applicant had initiated the conflict with B. herself and thus there had been no negligence on the part of the asylum’s employees. The court, having listened to the parties and witnesses and having examined the case material, concluded that on 2 April 1998 as a result of a fight between the applicant and B., “who at the material time was found to be without legal capacity” (яка на той момент була визнана недієздатною), the applicant had received injuries. The court expressly noted that those conclusions were not disputed by the parties. The court further referred to the decision of the prosecutor’s office of 8 May 1998 (see paragraph 8 above) and held that harm had been inflicted on the applicant as a result of negligence by the asylum employees (orderlies). Lastly, the court rejected the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damages (compensation for medication, food, loss of income and travel expenses) as not supported by relevant evidence. 16.  The applicant lodged an appeal challenging the refusal of the court to award her pecuniary damages but later withdrew it. The decision of 3 October 2006 thus became final and enforceable. 17.  On 13 December 2006 the prosecutor’s office sent a demand to the asylum pointing out violations of work safety regulations which required remediation. According to the demand, the applicant’s rights had been violated because there had been no internal investigation into the incident within the statutory time‑limit (of within ten days of the incident). 18.  There is no information to suggest that the asylum complied with the demand. 19.  On 3 October 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Luhansk, seeking an acknowledgement that bodily harm had been inflicted on her. The applicant asserted, in particular, that the asylum was avoiding delivering a report on the incident even though it was necessary to establish the facts surrounding the incident and to recover damages for the injuries sustained. 20.  On 22 November 2007 the complaint was allowed by the court. Referring to its decision of 3 October 2006, which had become final (see paragraph 16 above), the court established that the applicant had had a fight with B. and had received injuries while at the asylum. 21.  On 18 February 2008 the applicant instituted a new set of proceedings against the asylum, seeking compensation for loss of labour capacity and expenses for medications which the applicant permanently needed. 22.  On 15 June 2012 the Zhovtnevyy District Court allowed the claim. Referring to its judgment of 3 October 2006 (see paragraph 15 above), the court established that harm had been inflicted on the applicant as a result of negligence by the asylum employees. The court also noted that even though B. had not been declared to be without legal capacity, at the time of the incident both she and the applicant had been under the supervision of the asylum, which should accordingly have been held responsible for the incident. On 23 October 2012 the Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 23.  On 30 January 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine, following an appeal by the defendant, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. It held that since B. “ha[d] not been declared to be without legal capacity” (не була визнана недієздатною), she had been partially responsible for the incident and thus the lower courts should have considered the extent of her liability. 24.  On 27 September 2013 the first-instance court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded her UAH 44,130 (around EUR 4,140 at the material time). The asylum was ordered to pay the applicant each month UAH 779.52 (approximately EUR 71), which was 64% of the monthly minimum wage. The court noted that, according to the court decision of 3 October 2006, harm had been inflicted on the applicant as a result of negligence by the asylum employees. However, since B. had not been officially declared to be without legal capacity and thus had been partially liable for the incident, liability for the incident and damages were divided between the asylum and B. as to 80% and 20%, respectively. No particular grounds for that assessment were given. 25.  Both parties appealed against this judgment. The applicant argued that the asylum had been solely responsible for her injuries, referring to the court’s findings on 3 October 2006 (see paragraph 15 above) and 22 November 2007 (see paragraph 20 above). On 18 December 2013 the Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 27 September 2013, noting that “the first-instance court had correctly established the degree of guilt of those who had inflicted harm”. On 17 February 2014 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave for appeal as unsubstantiated.