4.  In 1992 the applicant was working for a pharmaceuticals company. 5.  In March 1992 the Elin Pelin Investigation Service opened a preliminary investigation into the attempted theft of ten barrels of chemicals from the company premises. In April and May 1992 the applicant and two other employees were charged. 6.  On 2 July 1992 the investigator finished his work on the case and sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. On 15 July 1992 that Office dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused and on 24 July 1992 indicted the applicant. 7.  At a hearing held on 27 October 1992 the Elin Pelin District Court found indications that the applicant’s co‑accused might have been involved in the commission of the offence and referred the case back for further investigation. 8.  Following additional inquiries, on 23 March 1993 the investigator charged the applicant and the two other employees anew and on 31 March 1993 sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. 9.  On 3 May 1993 the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office again dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused. Upon the appeal of the applicant, on 7 June 1993 the Sofia Regional Prosecutor’s Office confirmed this decision. Upon the applicant’s further appeal, on 9 August 1993 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office found that the facts of the case had not been sufficiently elucidated, quashed the decision and referred the case back for further investigation. 10.  Following an additional investigation, in December 1993 the applicant and the two other employees were charged anew and in January 1994 the file was sent to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. 11.  On 3 February 1994 the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office referred the case back to the investigator, finding that the facts had not been sufficiently elucidated and that the applicant and one of his co-accused had been questioned in the absence of their counsel. 12.  After addressing these omissions, on 7 March 1994 the investigator sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. 13.  On 14 March 1994 the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused and on 27 June 1994 indicted the applicant. 14.  The Elin Pelin District Court examined the case in six hearings which took place between October 1994 and November 1995. It heard a number of witnesses. Three of the hearings were adjourned because certain witnesses, despite being duly subpoenaed, failed to appear. One hearing failed to take place because the prosecutor was absent and one was adjourned to allow the applicant to call additional witnesses. 15.  In a judgment of 30 November 1995 the Elin Pelin District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year and three months’ imprisonment, suspended. 16.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed. 17.  The Sofia Regional Court, after adjourning one hearing upon the request of the applicant’s counsel, who had not had enough time to prepare due to the late arrival of the file in the court’s registry, examined the appeal at a hearing held on 26 February 1996. 18.  On 27 February 1996 the Sofia Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case to the preliminary investigation stage. It found that the lower court had failed to apprise the applicant of his rights to defend himself and to request the recusal of the judges. It also found that the value of the chemicals had not been assessed by an expert and that the lower court’s findings of fact had not been sufficiently supported by the evidence. 19.  Following additional inquiries, on 15 May 1996 the applicant was charged anew and the file was sent to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. On 8 July 1996 that Office found that the facts had not been sufficiently elucidated and referred the case back to the investigator. 20.  On an unspecified date the investigator sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office without having carried out any investigative steps. Accordingly, on 10 October 1996 that Office referred it back. 21.  Following a few additional inquiries, on 8 June 1999 the investigator sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office with a proposal to drop the charges against the applicant. Finding that its instructions had not been complied with, on 4 October 1999 that Office once more referred the case back to the investigator. 22.  After questioning five witnesses between October 1999 July 2000, on 18 July 2000 the investigator sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. After partially reformulating the charges against the applicant on 29 November 2000, on 15 January 2000 that Office again referred the case back to the investigator with instructions to clarify certain aspects of the commission of the offence. 23.  On 26 February 2001 the applicant was charged anew. On 28 February 2001 the file was sent to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office, which indicted the applicant on 21 June 2001. 24.  The Elin Pelin District Court examined the case in six hearings which took place between September 2001 and June 2002. It heard a number of witnesses and one expert. Three of the hearings were adjourned because of the absence of witnesses who had not been duly subpoenaed. One hearing was adjourned because the applicant had not been summoned and consequently did not appear. One of the adjournments was also due to the applicant’s request to call additional witnesses. 25.  In a judgment of 10 June 2002 the Elin Pelin District Court found the applicant guilty. It sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment, suspended – below the statutory minimum. In determining the sentence it took into account the applicant’s lack of prior convictions, the lack of information that he was of bad character, the long lapse of time between the commission of the offence and the handing down of the court’s judgment, and the fact that the offence had remained inchoate. 26.  The applicant appealed. 27.  After holding a hearing on 28 October 2002, on 11 November 2002 the Sofia Regional Court upheld the conviction and sentence, with one slight modification relating to the legal characterisation of the offence. 28.  The applicant appealed on points of law. 29.  After holding a hearing on 17 March 2003, on 31 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment.