4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Norsborg. 5.  On 21 October 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated tax fraud and an aggravated bookkeeping offence in relation to the declaration of value-added tax and employers’ contributions for the period July 1994 – September 1996 by Latem AB, a building company wholly owned by him. He was detained by a decision of the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm on 23 October 1996 and released from detention on 3 December 1996. 6.  The applicant was interrogated on several occasions in 1996 and 1997. The preliminary investigation, which concerned 20 companies, was concluded on 25 April 1998. The applicant was notified of the investigation report which covered 7,000 pages. Following submissions by the various suspects, the public prosecutor declared in June 1999 that he expected to bring indictments in the autumn of 1999. 7.  On 51 occasions thereafter, the public prosecutor requested and the District Court granted extensions of the time-limit for bringing indictments. Eventually, on 28 October 2002 the applicant, together with 16 other suspects, was indicted for aggravated tax fraud and an aggravated bookkeeping offence. The trial commenced on 2 September 2003. 8.  By a partial judgment of 4 December 2003, the District Court acquitted the applicant of certain charges. By a further judgment of 27 February 2004 the District Court acquitted him of the remaining charges. In the absence of an appeal from the prosecutor, the latter judgment acquired legal force on 19 March 2004. 9.  On 22 October 1996 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm initiated an audit of Latem AB’s liability for value-added tax and employers’ contributions concerning the above-mentioned period. On 24 June 1997 the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm, at the request of the Tax Authority, issued an order that assets belonging to the company could be claimed in security for unpaid value-added tax (but not for any tax surcharges that might be imposed on the company). On 5 December 1997 the Tax Authority completed its audit report. By its communication to the company the same day, the company was informed that the Tax Authority was considering, inter alia, imposing tax surcharges on it. 10.  On the basis of the findings of the audit, the Tax Authority, by decisions of 18 December 1997 and 26 March and 1 April 1998, revised upwards the taxation bases for calculating the relevant taxes by a total of approximately 3 million Swedish kronor (SEK) (value-added tax) and approximately SEK 14.6 million (employers’ contributions). In addition, Latem AB was considered responsible for employees’ taxes based on a total salary amount of approximately SEK 10.6 million. Moreover, as the information supplied by the company in its tax returns was found to be incorrect, the Tax Authority ordered it to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg) amounting to 20% of the increased tax liability for value-added tax and employers’ contributions. 11.  The company appealed to the County Administrative Court. Following an oral hearing on 11 November 1999, the court, by six judgments of 29 November 1999, upheld the Tax Authority’s decisions, save for a minor reduction of the taxation base for employers’ contributions for one year. 12.  On 4 February 2000 the company appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm. On 12 February 2003, the appellate court held an oral hearing and, by a judgment of 10 March 2003, it upheld the County Administrative Court’s judgments. 13.  On 2 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regerings-rätten) refused leave to appeal. 14.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Justitieombudsmannen) about the preliminary investigation against him. The matter was referred to the Director General of the National Economic Crimes Bureau. 15.  In a decision of 22 November 2002, the Director General criticised the responsible prosecutor for the delays in the preliminary investigation. He found that the prosecutor should have decided whether to bring an indictment at the latest during the autumn of 1999 and thus disagreed with the prosecutor’s opinion that he had to await the outcome of the tax proceedings. The Director General further stated that, whatever reasons there might have been for the delay, it was unacceptable for a suspect to have to wait more than four years after a completed preliminary investigation for a decision whether he would be indicted for offences dating back even further. The Director General was also astonished that the District Court had repeatedly extended the time-limit set for bringing an indictment. Noting that the prosecutor had not given any information on the state of the investigation when requesting extensions and that the court had not asked for such information, he pointed out that the court’s task when examining such requests was to determine whether the seizure of property should remain, to keep itself informed of the state of the investigation and to see to it that the investigation proceeded with appropriate speed. 16.  The applicant further requested compensation for suffering caused by his detention in 1996. On 2 June 2004 the Chancellor of Justice, pursuant to the Act on Compensation for Deprivations of Liberty (Lagen om ersättning vid frihetsinskränkning, 1974:515), awarded him SEK 35,000 for suffering and SEK 2,500 for legal costs. 17.  Upon application by the Enforcement Office (kronofogde-myndigheten) representing the State, the District Court, on 18 December 2003, declared Latem AB bankrupt on the basis of unpaid taxes and surcharges totalling approximately SEK 10.7 million which were due as a consequence of the above tax decisions.