4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Ulan-Ude in the Buryatiya Republic. 5.  The Russian authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant:
-  on 13 June 1999 under Article 198 § 2 of the Criminal Code (tax evasion by a private person); the applicant was charged on 10 August 1999;
-  on 24 June 1999 under Article 201 § 1 of the Code (abuse of power);
-  on 29 August 1999 under Article 199 of the Code (tax evasion by a legal entity);
-  on 13 October 1999 under Article 160 § 3 (b) (misappropriation of private property);
-  on 21 January 2000 under Article 165 (causing pecuniary damage). 6.  The above cases were joined on a number of occasions, most recently on 4 June 2001. According to the Government, the charges under Articles 165 and 199 of the Code were abandoned on 5 January 2000 and 4 June 2001 respectively (see, however, paragraph 9 below). 7.  According to the Government, the proceedings were suspended on 6 January, 4 February and 17 August 2000, 13 June and 21 September 2001, and 20 January 2003, owing to the applicant’s illness. According to the Government, the applicant and his counsel were advised that the proceedings had been suspended on a number of occasions and subsequently resumed. 8.  On 18 August 2004 the applicant sought access to the case file and, in particular, to the above-mentioned decisions to suspend the proceedings. On 27 August 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Buryatiya Republic sent him a letter stating that the case file might be available at the archives of the Tax Authority in Ulan-Ude. On 5 October 2004 the Investigations Department of the Regional Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant that the criminal case against him had been suspended owing to his illness. Upon his renewed request, on 22 December 2004 the applicant received another reply from the Regional Office of the Drugs Control Service stating that the Investigations Department might be able to provide the requested documents. On 8 September 2005 the Drugs Control Service informed the applicant that on 10 July 2003 the criminal case against him had been forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Buryatiya Republic. 9.  On 20 January 2006 the Investigations Department discontinued the proceedings as regards charges under Articles 160, 165, 198, 199 and 201 of the Criminal Code. 10.  In August 1997 the applicant bought a PAZ-320500 bus. On 5 November 1999 the investigator in the criminal case against the applicant (see above) authorised seizure of the bus as security for eventual civil claims against him or eventual confiscation as a penalty under Article 160 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 16 below). On 9 November 1999 the applicant’s bus was seized. It appears that no civil claims were lodged in the criminal case against the applicant. 11.  On an unspecified date the bus was transferred for safekeeping to a Mr Y. 12.  In September 2003 the applicant brought proceedings in which he challenged the investigator’s seizure order as unlawful and requested the court to release the bus. 13.  On 15 September 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude examined the applicant’s claims with reference to Article 125 of the 2002 Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 19 below) and rejected them as unfounded. The court held as follows:
“...under Article 175 § 1 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure in order to secure civil claims or eventual confiscation of property the investigator shall issue an order of attachment in respect of the accused’s property which had been unlawfully obtained. Article 160 § 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for confiscation as a penalty. Besides, the case discloses pecuniary loss [sustained by the victim], and the victim has the right to file a civil claim for damages against the applicant...
The court finds no reasons for leaving the bus with [the applicant] for safekeeping...
The [first instance] court rejected the applicant’s arguments to the effect that his property rights over the bus had been breached by the continuing attachment of property and the criminal case is still pending. The case is being suspended owing to the applicant’s illness...” 14.  On 11 November 2003 the Supreme Court of the Buryatiya Republic upheld the judgment on appeal. The court stated:
“Under Article 115 § 9 the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now applicable to issues pertaining to attachment of property, the authority dealing with the criminal case has the power to release the property under the order of attachment, if attachment is no longer needed. As shown by the case file, at present the criminal case against the applicant is being dealt with by the investigating authority, the investigation being suspended. Taking into account the earlier submissions and the requirement of the procedure under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is not empowered to decide on the issue of lifting the order of attachment...” 15.  On 18 July 2006 the deputy prosecutor of the Buryatiya Republic lifted the order of attachment in respect of the applicant’s bus. The applicant was served with a copy of that decision on 21 March 2007. It appears that the authorities were unable to determine where the bus was kept and thus could not return it to the applicant.