5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional colony IK-3 in the Ryazan Region. 6.  On 10 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, and on 12 June 2004 he was charged with aiding and abetting murder under Articles 33 § 5 and 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 7.  On the same day (12 June 2004) the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ryazan (hereinafter “the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a particularly serious criminal offence and held that, if he remained at large, he might abscond from the investigation and the court and obstruct the establishment of truth in the case. On 22 June 2004 the Ryazan Regional Court (hereinafter “the Regional Court”) upheld the above decision on appeal. 8.  On 6 August 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 September 2004. The court reiterated that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that his position during the investigation gave grounds to believe that, if released, he might abscond and obstruct the establishment of the truth. 9.  On 22 September 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 November 2004. The court once again relied on the particular gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding and obstructing the establishment of the truth. 10.  On 18 November 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant who in these proceedings was suspected of being involved in kidnapping and robbery under Articles 126 § 2 (a) and 161 § 2 (a) and (d) of the Criminal Code respectively. On the same day the two criminal cases against the applicant were joined. 11.  On 24 November 2004 the proceedings concerning the charges of aiding and abetting murder were discontinued owing to lack of evidence and the charges were dropped. On the same day, charges of kidnapping and robbery were brought against the applicant following the investigation instituted on 18 November 2004 (see paragraph 10 above). 12.  On 25 November 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 2004. The court relied on the gravity of the new charges against the applicant and the applicant’s previous criminal record, which characterised him as a person prone to unlawful conduct. On 7 December 2004 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 13.  On 8 December 2004 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 26 January 2005. The court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding from the investigation. 14.  Upon receipt of the case file, on 1 February 2005 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and extended the applicant’s detention until 1 August 2005 with reference to the gravity of the charges and the risk of the applicant’s absconding from the court. 15.  At the end of the trial, on 20 May 2005 the prosecutor dropped the charges of robbery, following which the District Court convicted the applicant of kidnapping and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. However, on 14 July 2005 the Regional Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for retrial. The court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 16.  On 12 August and 13 October 2005 the District Court, referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, extended his detention until 1 November 2005 and 1 February 2006 respectively. 17.  On 19 December 2005 the District Court again convicted the applicant of kidnapping and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. However, on 2 February 2006 the Regional Court again quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for retrial. The court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 18.  On 16 February 2006 the District Court, relying on the gravity of the charges against the applicant, extended the applicant’s detention until 1 May 2006. 19.  On 27 April 2006 the District Court once more convicted the applicant of kidnapping and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 13 July 2006 the Regional Court again quashed the judgment and remitted the case for retrial. The court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and should be extended for three months. 20.  On 25 July 2006 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 21.  On 4 September 2006 the District Court referred the case to the prosecutor for rectification of the bill of indictment. The court further held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. On 12 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. It further held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and should be extended for three months. 22.  Following a request by the applicant, on 26 December 2006 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed, by way of supervisory review, the decision of 12 October 2006 in so far as it concerned the extension of the applicant’s detention. The court held as follows:
“Pursuant to Article 109 § 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court cannot examine the application for extension of the custodial measure in the absence of the defendant.
The above requirements of the law, mandatory for the appeal court, were not complied with in the present case.
In addition, the decision of the appeal court lacks any reasoning for extending [the applicant’s] detention; it contains no reference to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or indication of the specific date until which his detention was extended.
Therefore, the breach by the appeal court of the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure when examining the extension of [the applicant’s] detention is substantial and leads to the amendment of the [relevant] part of the decision of the Ryazan Regional Court of 12 October 2006.”
The applicant was released from custody on the same day. 23.  In the meantime, on 13 November 2006, the District Court again remitted the case to the prosecutor for further rectification of the bill of indictment. On 21 December 2006 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 24.  The applicant signed the rectified bill of indictment on 28 December 2006 and it was returned to the District Court on 29 December 2006. 25.  On 15 January 2007 the District Court scheduled the preliminary hearing for 26 January 2007. On that date the District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody again. The court justified its decision by reasoning that the applicant might interfere with the witnesses, abscond or otherwise obstruct the examination of the case on the merits. On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 26.  On 7 May 2007 the applicant lodged an application for release. He argued, in particular, that the statutory three-month time-limit had expired on 26 April 2007. On the same day the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. Referring to Article 255 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court held that the time-limit for the applicant’s detention pending trial could not exceed six months from the date on which the court received the file until the date on which a judgment was given. The court opined that the time‑limit had started to run on 29 December 2006 and that it would come to an end on 28 June 2007. The operative part of the decision stated that it could be appealed against within ten days to the Regional Court. 27.  The applicant appealed against the above decision. He challenged the District Court’s interpretation of Article 255 and argued that the repeated application of the six-month time-limit was incompatible with the judicial guarantees of liberty and security. He also referred to the overall length of his detention. 28.  On 22 May 2007 the Regional Court discontinued the examination of the appeal. Referring to Article 355 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it held that the rulings rendered by the District Court in the course of the trial were not amenable to appeal. The Regional Court further held, relying on the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 March 2005 no. 4-P, that the applicant could apply for release again in the event that circumstances showing the existence of grounds for terminating the custodial measure were discovered. 29.  On 7 June 2007 the applicant applied for release again. His application was dismissed on the same day. 30.  On 28 June 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of kidnapping and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 18 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal but reduced the sentence to six years’ imprisonment. 31.  Relying on the Presidium’s decision of 26 December 2006, the applicant brought proceedings against the Federal Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for damage incurred in respect of his unlawful detention from 12 October to 26 December 2006. 32.  On 10 December 2007 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow rejected the applicant’s claim. Relying on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 133 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court held that the applicant had failed to produce evidence showing that the custodial measure had been applied to him unlawfully, and that his right to rehabilitation had been recognised in accordance with the established procedure. It further held that the decision of 12 October 2006 had been quashed by the Presidium of the Regional Court on account of a violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than unreasonable application of the measure in question. 33.  The applicant did not appeal against the above decision.