6.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1963 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 7.  On 21 September 1995 Mr Dimitrov was arrested by the police while trying to break into a car with two other individuals, M.M. and S.D. He was taken to a police station, where he made a written confession. M.M., who was apparently also taken into custody, made a confession as well and turned over to the police two radio cassette players stolen from two cars which he had broken into earlier. On the same day a police officer drew up a report on the incident. 8.  On 1 November 1995 a police investigator interviewed S.D. who confessed that he had committed the offence in concert with Mr Dimitrov and M.M. 9.  On an unspecified date in 1995 the case was given the number 1074/95. 10.  On 19 February 2002 the investigator in charge of the case interviewed one of the police officers who had arrested Mr Dimitrov. On 21 February 2002 he interviewed the owner of one of the cars, and on the same day ordered an expert report on the value of the stolen goods. The report was ready the same day. On 1 March 2002 the investigator interviewed the owner of another car. 11.  On 4 March 2002 Mr Dimitrov was formally charged with attempted theft committed in concert with M.M. and S.D. He was interviewed in the presence of his counsel and pleaded guilty. On the same day the investigator interviewed S.D. as a witness. It seems that neither M.M. nor S.D. were charged. 12.  On 22 May 2002 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office, noting that in January 2000 M.M. had left Bulgaria and was in Spain, that it was impossible to establish the facts without interviewing him, and it was necessary to charge him as well, decided to stay the proceedings pending his return. On 11 April 2005, noting that on 28 March 2005 M.M. had come back from Spain, the same Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to resume the proceedings. 13.  On 18 April 2005 M.M. was interviewed as a witness. He was interviewed again on 15 June 2005 in the presence of a judge. S.D. was also interviewed as a witness in the presence of the judge. It seems that neither M.M. nor S.D. were charged. 14.  On 11 July 2005 Mr Dimitrov was allowed to acquaint himself with the case file. On 19 July 2005 the investigator recommended that he be brought for trial, and on 25 August 2005 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office indicted him. 15.  The Plovdiv District Court (Пловдивски районен съд) heard the case on 18 May 2006. The prosecution and Mr Dimitrov stated that they had entered into a plea bargain. The court approved the bargain, sentenced the applicant to five months’ imprisonment, suspended, and terminated the proceedings. 16.  On 11 March 1996 a criminal investigation was opened against Mr Hamanov, a bank branch manager, and several other individuals in connection with a number of financial transactions. After March 1996 the case went through a preliminary investigation, trial and appeal. Following a remittal to the preliminary investigation stage in June 2000, in April 2003 it was again pending before the prosecuting authorities. The detailed course of the proceedings up to April 2003 has been set out in paragraphs 11‑32 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, 8 April 2004). 17.  In September 2003 one of Mr Hamanov’s co‑accused made a request under the new Article 239a of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 38‑40 below). On 31 October 2003 the Plovdiv District Court requested the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office to send it the case file. On 6 November 2003 that Office forwarded the request to the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which was dealing with the case. 18.  Apparently as a result of the above, on 10 November 2003 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court (Пловдивски окръжен съд) an indictment against Mr Hamanov and seven other accused. Mr Hamanov was accused of breaching his duties as bank branch manager by making thirty‑five unauthorised bank transfers, in breach of the applicable financial regulations, and by guaranteeing nine promissory notes, in breach of a resolution of the bank’s management board prohibiting branch managers from issuing such guarantees, and thereby causing the bank a pecuniary loss. The offences were characterised by the prosecution as abuse of office under Article 282 of the Criminal Code. Mr Hamanov was additionally charged with unlawfully acquiring and possessing ammunition. 19.  On 30 January 2004 the court set the case down for trial. 20.  Two hearings, listed for 26 April and 15 June 2004, were adjourned, the first because the State had not been properly summoned as a civil party, and the second because Mr Hamanov was ill and could not attend. 21.  A hearing was held from 25 to 28 October 2004. On the last‑mentioned date the court adjourned the case, finding that this was necessary in order to obtain the testimony of certain witnesses and experts who had failed to show up, and to hear additional witnesses called by the prosecution and the defence. 22.  Three hearings, fixed for 23 February, 14 April and 13 June 2005, failed to take place, the first because Mr Hamanov’s counsel was absent, the second because another accused’s counsel had to be replaced, and the third because another accused was ill and could not attend. 23.  A hearing was held from 26 to 30 September 2005. On the last‑mentioned date the court adjourned the case, finding that this was necessary in order to obtain the testimony of certain witnesses and experts who had failed to show up, to hear additional witnesses called by the prosecution and the defence, and to obtain certain documents. 24.  Two hearings, listed for 19 December 2005 and 23 February 2006, were adjourned because other accused and their counsel were ill and could not attend. 25.  Two hearings were held from 25 to 28 April and from 26 to 28 June 2006. 26.  The Plovdiv Regional Court gave its judgment on 29 June 2006, and handed down the reasons for it in March 2007. It convicted Mr Hamanov of guaranteeing the promissory notes, holding that this had amounted to wilful mismanagement contrary to Article 219 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 51 below), not abuse of office contrary to Article 282 of the Code. It acquitted him of the charge relating to the making of the thirty‑five bank transfers. In addition, it found Mr Hamanov guilty of possession of ammunition, but not guilty of acquiring it. In connection with the mismanagement, the court sentenced Mr Hamanov to four years and four months’ imprisonment and barred him from acting as a director of a commercial bank for four years and six months. In connection with the possession of ammunition, it sentenced him to a fine of ten Bulgarian levs. In determining the quantum of the punishment to be imposed in relation to the mismanagement, the court noted the following:
“Bearing in mind the legal characterisation of the [offence] committed by [Mr Hamanov] ..., [his] dangerousness, [his] personality, the long period during which [he] was criminally prosecuted, and the need to attain the aims of the punishment ..., the court considers that [he] should be sentenced in line with Article 54 of the [1968 Criminal Code – see paragraph 50 below], under predominantly mitigating circumstances. The court finds that those circumstances were [the applicant’s] clean criminal record, his good character, the fact that [he] is in employment at the time of delivery of this judgment, [his] stable family and social situation, [and] the partial confession that he made during the trial. The aggravating circumstances [consist in] the perseverance, determination and coordination displayed by [Mr Hamanov] in carrying out [his] criminal acts.
...
In view of the established case‑law that, when accompanying a sentence of imprisonment, [occupational debarment] cannot be shorter than that imprisonment, and bearing in mind the significant amount of time which has elapsed since the commission of the offence ... the court considers that is must bar [Mr Hamanov] from acting as a director of a commercial bank for a period of four years and six months...” 27.  Between 10 and 13 July 2006 Mr Hamanov and the other accused, as well as the prosecution, appealed against the judgment. 28.  On 17 May 2007 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal (Пловдивски апелативен съд) set the appeals down for hearing on 28 June 2007. However, the hearing failed to take place on that date because another accused did not have legal representation. It was held on 27 September 2007. 29.  The Plovdiv Court of Appeal gave its judgment on 23 October 2007, fully upholding the lower court’s judgment. 30.  Mr Hamanov and the other accused appealed on points of law. 31.  The hearing before the Supreme Court of Cassation (Върховен касационен съд) was fixed for 4 April 2008, but was adjourned because the civil party had not been properly summoned and because another accused who wished to be present was prevented from attending. It took place on 9 May 2008. 32.  The Supreme Court of Cassation gave its judgment on 9 July 2008, upholding the part of the lower court’s judgment concerning Mr Hamanov in its entirety.