6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Belgrade. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  On 28 October 1999 the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Peto opštinsko javno tužilastvo) in Belgrade filed a request for the opening of a judicial investigation (zahtev za sprovođenje istrage) against the applicant, alleging that he had committed numerous offences of theft under Article 166 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 9.  On 16 December 1999 the investigating judge of the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade (Peti opštinski sud u Beogradu, hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) instituted a judicial investigation (doneo rešenje o sprovođenju istrage) in respect of these charges. 10.  On 18 January 2000 the same court’s investigating judge found that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown and issued a warrant, ordering his detention for a period of up to one month. 11.  On 16 April 2002 the Municipal Court, acting ex officio, appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings. 12.  On 20 January 2005, at 4 p.m., the applicant was arrested by the police and taken to the District Prison (Okružni zatvor) in Belgrade. This arrest was carried out on the basis of the Municipal Court’s detention order of 18 January 2000. 13.  On 21 January 2005 the Municipal Court attempted to contact the applicant’s lawyer, but he could not be reached. On 24 January 2005, therefore, the court appointed another lawyer to represent the applicant. 14.  Since the newly appointed lawyer was unable to go to the District Prison on 25 January 2005, the applicant’s hearing was re-scheduled for 27 January 2005. 15.  On 27 January 2005, at 9.30 a.m., the applicant, in his lawyer’s presence, was heard by the investigating judge of the Municipal Court, on which occasion, inter alia, he denied all charges and explicitly waived his right to file an appeal against the detention order of 18 January 2000. It would appear that the applicant considered that he had little chance of being released on appeal and preferred instead to be tried as soon as possible. 16.  On 3 February 2005 the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment against the applicant. 17.  On 4 February 2005 the three-judge panel of the Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention for another 30 days, without having heard him or his lawyer in person. 18.  On 11 February 2005 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision, pointing out, inter alia, that he had not been brought promptly before a judge, “in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention”. 19.  On 18 February 2005 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade rejected this appeal, ruling again in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. It also failed to consider the applicant’s specific complaint made under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 20.  The applicant’s trial began on 2 March 2005, but his detention had been extended. 21.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant was found guilty by the Municipal Court, sentenced to one year and two months in prison and released from detention. 22.  On 19 December 2005 the District Court quashed the impugned judgment and ordered a retrial. 23.  On 16 February 2007 the Municipal Court, based on a somewhat amended indictment, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight months in prison. 24.  On 5 April 2007 the applicant seems to have filed an appeal against this judgment with the District Court in Belgrade.