CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20713/18 Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych SAVRUK against Ukraine lodged on 17 April 2018 communicated on 5 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a lengthy investigation of a fraud committed against the applicant. In August 2004 the applicant requested prosecutors to institute a criminal investigation against M. who had allegedly defrauded him by taking 7,000   euros (EUR). On 17 September 2004 the prosecutors instituted the investigation. On 27 February 2017 the applicant was informed that the criminal investigation had been closed on 25 November 2013. On 13 March 2017 the higher prosecutor ordered resumption of the investigation. The investigation remained pending as of 17 April 2018 when the applicant lodged the application with the Court. On 30 January 2025 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had died on 27 July 2020 and that his widow, Mrs Mariia Savruk wished to pursue the application. The applicant complains that the investigation into the fraud has been lengthy and ineffective. He invokes Article 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the respondent State discharge its positive obligation under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to provide the applicant with effective remedies enabling him to seek to vindicate his rights following the fraud allegedly committed against him? In particular: (i) has there been an effective criminal investigation into the matter in compliance with that provision (see Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria , no.   21743/15, §§ 54-76, 8 November 2022; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino , no. 35511/20, §§ 105-08, 15 December 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine , no.   74663/17, §§ 36-37 and 55-57, 19 January 2023)? (ii) was it open to the applicant, if he considered that the criminal investigation in his case was ineffective, to institute separate civil proceedings against the alleged perpetrator, in the absence of a final decision or a specific accused charged in in the criminal proceedings (compare, for example, Blumberga v. Latvia , no. 70930/01, §§ 64-73, 14 October 2008; Abukauskai v. Lithuania , no.   72065/17, §§   54-57 and §   71, 25   February 2020)?