6.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1970 respectively, and live in Odessa. They are a married couple. 7.  At the time of the events the first applicant was an accountant in a private food-processing company (“company Y.”). Her mother, N., was its director and owner. The second applicant was a private entrepreneur supplying company Y. with raw materials in exchange for processed foodstuffs. 8.  On 23 July 2001 the Odessa Prymorskyy district prosecutor’s office (“the Prymorskyy prosecutor’s office”) opened a criminal case against the officials of company Y. on suspicion of forgery of quality certificates for the company’s goods. 9.  On the following day the police conducted a search on the company’s premises, as a result of which they seized a considerable volume of foodstuffs belonging to the second applicant. 10.  There was an altercation between the first applicant and the police: she attempted to leave, but several officers stopped her when she was already in her car, dragged her out and handcuffed her (see paragraphs 16, 31, 35 and 38 below for additional factual details). As the first applicant lost control of her vehicle, it collided with a car parked nearby, which belonged to a private person, G. 11.  On 24 May 2002 the Odessa Prymorskyy District Court (“the Prymorskyy Court”) quashed the prosecutor’s decision of 23 July 2001 (see paragraph 8 above) as unlawful. 12.  On 24 July 2001 N. (the first applicant’s mother and the director of company Y. – see paragraph 7 above) complained to the Prymorskyy prosecutor’s office about the events of 24 July 2001. She submitted in particular that the first applicant had been beaten by the police. 13.  On the following day N. sent a similar complaint to the city and regional prosecuting authorities, as well as the Prosecutor General’s Office. 14.  On 30 July 2001 the first applicant complained to the Prymorskyy Court about her alleged ill-treatment on 24 July 2001 at the time of her arrest. She asked the court to declare the officers’ actions unlawful and to oblige them to make a public apology to her. 15.  On 6 December 2001 the Prymorskyy Court forwarded the above complaint to the Odessa Suvorivskyy district prosecutor’s office (“the Suvorivskyy prosecutor’s office”) for investigation. 16.  On 20 December 2001 the Suvorivskyy prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of the constituent elements of a criminal offence in their actions. The prosecutor gave the following reasons for that decision. The first applicant had arrived at company Y. during the police search and had tried to leave the premises before the search had been completed. She had “deliberately inflicted minor bodily injuries on [two police officers] who had tried to stop her illegal actions”. Furthermore, a medical examination of the first applicant of 25 July 2001 had documented in particular an abrasion below her right eye, a bruise on her chest and a bruise on her left thigh. However, “she had sustained those injuries in circumstances which [she was] concealing”. The first applicant had also had bruises on her wrists and arms. Those had resulted from her forceful removal from the car and her subsequent handcuffing, both of which were deemed to be legitimate restraint measures. The prosecutor observed that the first applicant’s arrest by the police and the events thereafter had been video recorded, and that the videotape confirmed the police officers’ account. 17.  On 26 December 2001 the first applicant received a copy of the above ruling. 18.  She challenged the ruling before the Odessa Suvorivskyy District Court (“the Suvorivskyy Court”). As confirmed by a postal receipt, the first applicant sent the above complaint on 3 January 2002 and the court received it on 4 January 2002. 19.  On 10 January 2002 the Suvorivskyy Court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint without examining it on the grounds that it had been introduced out of time. According to the court’s ruling, she had lodged it on 9 January 2002[1], whereas she had had to do so within seven days of 26 December 2001. 20.  On 21 January 2002 the first applicant appealed against the above ruling to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal. She submitted that the correct date on which she had lodged her complaint was 3 January 2002[2] and she had not missed the seven-day time-limit, given that there had been official holidays during which neither the post office nor the court had been open. 21.  On 27 February 2004 the first applicant enquired with the Suvorivskyy Court about the progress of her appeal. In accordance with the relevant procedure, she had submitted the appeal via the court’s registry and the registry had been responsible for forwarding it to the appellate court. 22.  On 1 April 2004 the President of the Suvorivskyy Court replied to the first applicant that her appeal had indeed been received on 21 January 2002. However, the clerk who had registered it had been dismissed in February 2003. At the time of writing, there were no records of the first applicant’s appeal in the court’s information system. 23.  On 7 July 2004 the first applicant asked the Suvorivskyy Court to restore the proceedings concerning her appeal of 21 January 2002 which had apparently been mislaid. She received the reply that such an action was impossible, given that there was no appeal before the court. 24.  On 26 April 2005 the first applicant again challenged the prosecutor’s ruling of 20 December 2001 before the Suvorivskyy Court. 25.  The case file does not contain any further information in that regard. 26.  On 19 September 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the first applicant on suspicion of having inflicted minor bodily injuries on the police officers. 27.  On 3 December 2001 an obligation not to leave her town of residence was imposed on the first applicant as a preventive measure pending her trial. 28.  On 7 March 2002 the investigator rejected a request by the first applicant for a forensic medical examination to establish the seriousness of her injuries sustained on 24 July 2001. The reason for the rejection was that on 20 December 2001 the prosecutor had refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the matter (see paragraph 16 above). 29.  On 11 March 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was referred to court for trial. 30.  The Suvorivskyy Court adjourned hearings on several occasions owing to the absence of the first applicant and the absence of the victims and witnesses. One of the adjournments, which lasted almost eight months, was at the first applicant’s request, because she was pregnant. 31.  On 17 September 2004 the Suvorivskyy Court found the first applicant guilty of deliberately inflicting minor bodily injuries on law‑enforcement officials and sentenced her to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for one year. The court relied in particular on the videotape of the events of 24 July 2001, as well as reports on the officers’ medical examination of 25 July 2001 which documented the injuries which they had possibly sustained a day earlier. One of them had a bite wound on his right wrist possibly originating from a human bite, and an abrasion on his right hand that might have resulted from scratching by handcuffs. Another officer had abrasions on his face and right arm possibly resulting from being scratched with fingernails. The preventive measure in respect of the first applicant – the obligation not to leave town – remained the same. 32.  The first applicant appealed. She submitted in particular that the trial court had failed to examine her own allegation of ill-treatment by the police. She noted in that regard that, as shown on the videotape, at 2.30 p.m. she had had no visible injuries, whereas at 4.10 p.m. on that day there had been a bruise below her eye. 33.  On 23 September 2004 the President of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal acknowledged the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant in a letter sent to her following her complaints in that regard. The letter stated that the judge of the first-instance court who was dealing with her case had been disciplined in that regard. 34.  On 25 November 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 September 2004 (see paragraph 31 above) and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 35.  On 28 July 2005 the Suvorivskyy Court acquitted the first applicant. It held that, as indicated by the case-file material, the search conducted on company Y.’s premises on 24 July 2001 had been unlawful (see paragraph 11 above). Furthermore, the police officers involved had been wearing plain clothes. Accordingly, the first applicant’s actions had been legitimate and had aimed to protect her property and reputation. The court also lifted the preventive measure in respect of the first applicant. 36.  On 13 December 2005 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the prosecutor and quashed the judgment of 28 July 2005, remitting the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 37.  On 18 January 2006 the Suvorivskyy Court started a retrial. 38.  On 10 October 2008 the Suvorivskyy Court acquitted the first applicant once again and lifted her obligation not to leave town. The Suvorivskyy Court’s reasoning was similar to that in its decision of 28 July 2005. It further stated that the police officers had had no order to prevent anybody from leaving the company’s premises and that their violence towards the first applicant had been unlawful and arbitrary. 39.  On the same day the Suvorivskyy Court also delivered a separate ruling stating that there had been a number of violations of the domestic legislation and the Convention in the criminal proceedings against the first applicant. The case file before the Court does not contain a copy of that ruling. 40.  On 10 February 2009 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 10 October 2008 and the separate ruling. 41.  On 19 January 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions in the retrial proceedings. 42.  On 4 September 2001 G., with whose car the first applicant’s car had collided on 24 July 2001 (see paragraph 10 above), lodged a civil claim for damages against the first applicant. 43.  On three occasions the appellate court remitted the case to the first‑instance court for fresh examination. In the fourth round of the proceedings, on 2 December 2008, the Suvorivskyy Court allowed G.’s claim in part, awarding her an amount corresponding to 420 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and about EUR 50 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the first applicant. 44.  On 24 February and 7 May 2009 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that judgment. 45.  After the seizure of the foodstuffs on 24 July 2001, the prosecuting authorities transferred them to a private company, D. (“company D.”), for storage purposes. 46.  Following several unsuccessful complaints to the prosecuting authorities in respect of the search and seizure, on an unspecified date the second applicant brought a commercial claim against company D., seeking the return of his property, as well as compensation for lost profit. 47.  On 18 January 2002 the Odessa Regional Commercial Court allowed his claim in part and ordered company D., which did not dispute having received the foodstuffs, to return the second applicant’s property to him. However, as the bailiff was unable to find any such property at the premises of company D., on 14 February 2002 the same court changed the mode of enforcement in respect of its judgment and ordered the company to pay the second applicant 102,535 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH – about EUR 22,000 at the time). 48.  On 15 April 2002 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the defendant in part and deleted certain foodstuffs from a list referred to in the judgment of 18 January 2002. Apparently, the appellate court was not aware of the ruling of 14 February 2002. 49.  On 29 May 2002 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and rejected the second applicant’s claim. 50.  On 18 June 2002 the second applicant applied to the Higher Commercial Court for a review of its ruling of 29 May 2002 on the basis of newly discovered circumstances, namely the Prymorskyy Court’s decision of 24 May 2002 recognising that the criminal investigation against the company Y. officials had been unlawful (see paragraph 11 above). The Higher Commercial Court referred that application to the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal for examination. 51.  On 25 November 2002 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal quashed the Higher Commercial Court’s ruling of 29 May 2002. It held that the impugned seizure had taken place within the criminal proceedings, whose institution had been recognised as unlawful. Furthermore, the police had had no procedural documents authorising them to seize the goods in question. It had also been established that the withheld property had never been used as material evidence in criminal proceedings; nor had the assets been frozen or transferred to company D. to secure a civil claim. Lastly, the court stated that company D. had had no legal basis to sell those goods. 52.  On 3 April 2003 the bailiff’s service transferred to the second applicant UAH 4,404 which it had recovered from company D. in relation to the enforcement of the ruling of 14 February 2002. 53.  On 23 March 2004 the bailiff’s service returned the writ of enforcement to the court, as it was impossible to implement it, owing to the absence of any funds or property at company D. 54.  On 2 April 2002 the second applicant complained to the Odessa Regional Commercial Court of the bailiff’s inactivity as regards enforcing the ruling of 14 February 2002 (see paragraph 47 above). 55.  On 9 June 2003 the Odessa Regional Commercial Court found that there had indeed been an unlawful omission on the part of the bailiff’s service: the service had not taken any steps to ensure the enforcement. 56.  On 13 December 2004 the applicants brought a claim against the bailiff’s service, seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 57.  On 26 December 2005 the Odessa Kyivskyy District Court ordered the bailiff’s service to pay the second applicant UAH 98,131 in respect of pecuniary damage (the unenforced part of the ruling of 14 February 2002 – see paragraphs 47 and 52 above). The court also ordered the defendant to pay both applicants UAH 30,000 (about EUR 5,000) jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and rejected the first applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages. 58.  On 21 June 2006 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the Odessa Kyivskyy District Court’s decision of 26 December 2005. It rejected the first applicant’s claim and discontinued the proceedings brought by the second applicant, holding that his claim fell to be examined by commercial courts. 59.  The applicants appealed on points of law to the Higher Administrative Court, which started the proceedings on 24 March 2008. 60.  According to the applicants’ submissions of 7 September 2017, they did not receive any information from the Higher Administrative Court about further developments in those proceedings.