7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Samokov. Between 1991 and 1994 he was the mayor of Samokov. 8.  On 27 May 1993 the District Prosecutor's Office (Районна прокуратура) in Samokov opened criminal proceedings against the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant in his capacity as mayor of Samokov had bestowed unlawfully benefits to individuals by granting tenancy orders and authorising construction works (abuse of office contrary to Article 282 §§ 1 and 2 of the Penal Code), that he had made a false certification in an official document (Article 311 § 1 of the Penal Code), and that he had used offensive language in respect of several persons (Articles 146 and 148 § 1(3)(4)). 9.  As a measure to secure the applicant's appearance before the competent authorities, he was required to sign an undertaking that he would not leave Samokov without authorisation. This undertaking apparently remained in force throughout the proceedings. 10.  On 16 June 1993 the case was assigned to an investigator. On 14 July 1993 the applicant was questioned. On 27 July 1993 the investigator heard one witness. On 11 August 1993 the investigator concluded his work on the case and drew up a report proposing the termination of the proceedings, as the applicant's acts did not constitute criminal offences. 11.  On 24 September 1993 the District Prosecutor's Office referred the case back for further investigation. On an unspecified date the case was assigned to another investigator. 12.  On 18 January 1994 the Regional Prosecutor's Office (Окръжна прокуратура) in Sofia, acting under section 154 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the suspension of the applicant's term as the mayor of Samokov as there was a danger that he would obstruct the investigation. Upon the applicant's appeal this decision was confirmed by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Главна прокуратура). On 19 October 1994 the municipal council (общински съвет) removed the applicant from the post of mayor of Samokov. The removal was upheld on appeal by the Sofia Regional Court and by the Supreme Court. 13.  In the continuing criminal proceedings, on 24 March 1994 the investigator proposed a temporary suspension of the proceedings as an important witness was allegedly in hiding. On 4 April 1994 the case was again referred back for further investigation by decision of the District Prosecutor's Office. 14.  On 6 September 1994 the investigator reformulated the charges and, in addition, charged the applicant under Articles 172 §§ 1 and 2 and 282 of the Penal Code in respect of allegedly unlawful payments to dismissed municipal employees and his refusal to comply with a judicial order reinstating an employee. 15.  On 31 October 1994 the District Prosecutor's Office terminated the proceedings in so far as they concerned the charges about payments to dismissed employees and in respect of some of the incidents where the applicant had allegedly used offensive language. On the same date the prosecutor drew up an indictment in respect of the alleged crimes under Articles 282 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and 311 § 1 of the Penal Code and also as regards the applicant's alleged failure to comply with a judicial order (Article 172 §§ 1 and 2 of the Penal Code) and the remaining incidents where the applicant allegedly employed offensive language (Articles 146 and 148 § 1(3)(4)). 16.  During the preliminary investigation, in the period May 1993 - October 1994, the investigators examined numerous documents and heard ten witnesses. There is a dispute between the parties as to the number of experts' opinions ordered. According to the applicant they were six or seven, whereas the Government mentioned seventy-eight experts' opinions. 17.  The indictment was submitted to the Samokov District Court (Районен съд). 18.  Between 17 January 1995 and 15 May 1996 the District Court held nineteen hearings. The court heard about one hundred witnesses and many experts and admitted voluminous documentary evidence. The hearings were held at regular intervals and most adjournments were considered necessary to allow for the examination of witnesses that had not appeared or the collection of other evidence requested by the applicant or the prosecution. The District Court imposed fines on witnesses who had failed to appear without good cause and sent urgent requests to the police for assistance in respect of witnesses whose whereabouts were unknown. 19.  By judgment of 17 May 1996 the applicant was convicted on some of the charges and was acquitted for the remainder. He was sentenced to one year and three months' imprisonment, suspended. 20.  On 29 May 1996 the applicant appealed to the Sofia Regional Court (Окръжен съд). The prosecutor also appealed and requested that the judgement of the District Court be quashed and the case referred back to the investigation authorities. The Regional Court held a hearing on 8 July 1996. 21.  By judgement of 23 July 1996 the Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction under Article 311 § 1 and his acquittal under Article 172 §§ 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, quashed the remainder of the District Court's judgement and referred the latter part of the case back to the investigation authorities. 22.  As a result, in respect of the charges of false certification in an official document under Article 311 § 1 of the Penal Code, the proceedings ended on 28 February 1997, when the Supreme Court of Cassation (Върховен касационен съд) dismissed the applicant's petition for review (cassation) against the conviction part of the Regional Court's judgment. As regards the alleged offences under Articles 146 and 148 § 1(3)(4) and Article 282 §§ 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, the criminal proceedings continued at the preliminary investigation stage. 23.  The Regional Court remitted this part of the case to the investigation stage as it found a number of discrepancies between the initial charges and the indictment, mainly as regards the references to the legal provisions which the applicant had allegedly breached in abuse of his duties as a mayor. The Regional Court considered that as a result the applicant's defence rights had been curbed. 24.  No investigation was carried out between July 1996 and April 1997 since, following the judgment of 23 July 1996, the case file only reached the District Prosecutor's Office in October 1996, but had to be transmitted in November 1996 to the Supreme Court of Cassation in relation to the applicant's petition for review (cassation) of the conviction part of the judgment. After the delivery of that court's judgment on 28 February 1997, the case file reached the competent investigator in April 1997. 25.  On each of the dates 7 May, 12 May and 2 June 1997 the investigator heard one witness. 26.  By letters of 8 August, 27 August, 23 September and 29 September 1997 the applicant inquired with the District Prosecutor's Office in Samokov about the course of the proceedings and requested the collection of evidence. 27.  On 31 October 1997 the investigator reformulated the charges against the applicant. On 7 November 1997 the applicant was informed thereof and was questioned. The applicant had five meetings with the investigator until 25 November 1997. The applicant refused to give explanations. He requested the collection of additional documentary material. 28.  On 20 January 1998 the investigator sent requests for documentary material to several institutions. 29.  By letters of 26 February and 21 May 1998 the applicant protested against the delays in the proceedings. 30.  On 5, 6 and 7 August 1998 the investigator provided access to the case-file to three persons, the alleged victims. On 10 August 1998 the applicant appeared before the investigator, the material in the case was officially communicated to him and he was given the possibility to submit requests or objections. The applicant made a number of requests and remarks. 31.  On 21 August 1998 the investigator finalised the case and submitted it to the competent prosecutor proposing indictment. The prosecutor ordered further investigation to which the investigator objected. The ensuing dispute required the interference of the Regional Prosecutor's Office. Having examined the matter, on 11 June 1999 it ordered additional investigation. 32.  On 1 October 1999 the applicant was questioned by the investigator. On 5 October 1999 the applicant was provided access to all material in the case and invited to submit his final comments on the investigation. Thereafter, the case was transmitted to the competent prosecutor. 33.  By order of 17 November 1999 the District Prosecutor's Office terminated the proceedings in respect of a number of the charges. The applicant appealed stating, inter alia, that the order did not clarify the outstanding charges, so as to enable him to organise his defence. 34.  On 17 August 2000 the Regional Prosecutor's Office modified the order of 17 November 1999, accepting that it had been unclear and wrongly reasoned. As a result, the charges on three counts of abuse of office under Article 282 of the Penal Code were dropped on the ground that the acts imputed to the applicant did not constitute criminal offences and some other charges were abandoned as unproven. The remaining accusations were modified. 35.  As of March 2001 the proceedings were pending at the preliminary investigation stage. 36.  On an unspecified date the competent prosecutor drew up an indictment on 137 counts of abuse of office. The indictment ran on 35 pages and relied on seven witnesses, reports of nine experts and voluminous documentary material. 37.  The indictment was submitted to the District Court which held a first hearing on 21 February 2002. On that date the case was adjourned until 22 April 2002. 38.  On 27 March 1995 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant on suspicion that on 7 July 1992, at the time when he was mayor of Samokov, he had contravened Article 282 § 1 of the Penal Code (abuse of office) by ordering unlawfully the restitution of State property, a plot of land, to a private person, a Mr S. 39.  The property in question belonged to Mr S. until 1961 when the State had acquired it for the needs of the local post office. In 1992 Parliament enacted a law providing for the restitution of property nationalised under several pieces of legislation passed in the 1940s and 1950s. The plot of Mr S. had been acquired by the State in 1961 under other legislation and thus did not fall within the scope of the 1992 restitution law. Nevertheless, on 7 July 1992 the applicant had granted Mr S.'s request for restitution, citing as legal ground the 1992 restitution law. 40.  According to the charges, the procedure for examination of restitution requests by a commission of experts had not been followed. Furthermore, the order had no valid legal grounds and was issued by the applicant with the intention to bestow a benefit on Mr S. 41.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date in 1994 the post office brought a civil action against Mr S. claiming the property back. Several months later, in 1995, the Regional Governor quashed the 1992 restitution order issued by the applicant and, upon the appeal of Mr S., separate civil proceedings commenced between Mr S. and the Regional Governor. In a third set of civil proceedings Mr S. sought to prove against the post office that the 1961 acquisition had been null and void. The proceedings involving the Regional Governor ended in 1997, and those between the post office and Mr S. in 2000. The 1992 restitution order was eventually quashed and the plot of land returned to the local post office. 42.  In the criminal investigation against the applicant, between 12 April and 31 July 1995 the investigator heard at least fifteen witnesses, questioned the applicant, commissioned three expert reports, and obtained documentary material from several institutions. 43.  On 8 November 1995 the investigator concluded his work on the case and proposed to the competent prosecutor to submit an indictment in court. However, the proceedings remained dormant until August 1997. 44.  On 4 August 1997 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation against the applicant transmitted the file back to the investigator considering that the accusation was not supported by sufficient evidence and that, therefore, further investigation was necessary. In particular, it was necessary to establish the applicable rules and practice in the examination of restitution requests so as to clarify whether the applicant had acted in excess of his powers. The prosecutor also mentioned that the investigator should verify the outcome of the civil disputes concerning the ownership of the plot of land in question. 45.  On 20 August 1999 the investigator drew up a concluding report and transmitted the file to the prosecutor. 46.  On 15 October 1999 the prosecutor terminated the proceedings finding that the applicant's intention to bestow an unlawful benefit had not been proven.
In his decision, in the summary of facts, the prosecutor mentioned one of the two sets of civil proceedings described above, those opposing Mr S. against the local post office. Those proceedings were still pending at that time. The prosecutor's decision did not contain any statement as to the relevance of the civil case to the criminal proceedings against the applicant.