4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Vladimir. 5.  The applicant is a lawyer who used to provide legal services to a certain enterprise. 6.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having appropriated the enterprise’s funds. On the same day his case was joined to the case of his co-accused A. A week later a local newspaper published an article accusing the applicant of the crime that he was being charged with. 7.  In February and March 1999 the investigation authorities commissioned two expert examinations and apprised the applicant and his privately-retained counsel of their results. 8.  From 31 May to 13 October 1999 the applicant studied the case-file. 9.  On 15 November 1999 the case-file arrived at the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk (“the District Court”) which scheduled the first hearing for 17 April 2000. 10.  On 10 April 2000 one of the applicant’s counsels informed the court by a letter that he would not defend the applicant in court due to the applicant’s failure to pay for his services. He also mentioned that he would not be available due to a vacation. The hearing of 17 April 2000 did not take place following the applicant’s counsel’s default in appearance. Nor did they appear at the next hearing scheduled for 4 July 2000. 11.  At the hearing of 12 September 2000 the applicant was represented by a new privately-retained counsel who requested that the case be remitted to the prosecutor for curing of the investigation defects. His request was granted on 19 September 2000. The District Court reasoned that the investigation authorities had failed to ensure that the applicant was provided with legal assistance while studying the case-file, ignored his requests for additional expert examinations and committed certain procedural irregularities. 12.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant was again invited to study the case-file. Following his refusal to do so, the investigator informed him that it was open to him to familiarize himself with the case materials from 27 December 2000 to 11 January 2001. 13.  On 2 February 2001 the case arrived to the court. The hearing was first scheduled for 7 May and then for 14 May 2001 due to the judge’s involvement in different proceedings. 14.  On 14 May 2001 the court again granted the defence’s request for remittal of the case to the prosecutor. However, this decision was set aside on appeal on 16 July 2001. The trial court was ordered to continue examination of the case. 15.  The next hearing scheduled for 1 October 2001 did not take place due to the failure to deliver the accused to the court. 16.  On 8 October 2001 the court allowed the applicant to study the case-file until 15 October 2001. From 15 October to 1 November 2001 the court held regular hearings examining the case. 17.  On 1 November 2001 the court released the applicant from detention on an undertaking not to leave the town and granted the defence’s request for remittal of the case to the prosecutor. The decision to remit the case was again overturned on appeal on 29 November 2001. 18.  The next hearing was scheduled for 20 May 2002. However, the court had to stay the proceedings until 1 October 2002 due to the applicant’s illness. From 1 October 2002 to 2 April 2003 the court held regular hearings. 19.  On 2 April 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant of all charges. This judgment was overturned on appeal on 23 June 2003. The appeal court required a new hearing. 20.  On 11 August 2003 the applicant requested the court that the proceedings be adjourned until his convalescence. 21.  At the next hearing that took place on 15 October 2003 the court granted the applicant’s request for an accounting expert examination whose results arrived to the court on 17 May 2004. In May and June 2004 the court held regular hearings. 22.  On 25 June 2004 the applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting the manager of the enterprise in abuse of office and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. He was relieved from serving his sentence due to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution for the committed crime. When accepting the change in the qualification of the offence suggested by the prosecutor, the court noted that it did not aggravate the situation of the accused, nor did it impair their right to defence. 23.  On 2 July and 20 October 2004 the applicant submitted his grounds of appeal and a supplement to them. On 22 September 2004 he also submitted his objections to the hearing minutes, which were later dismissed. 24.  On 7 February 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.