6.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. 7.  The applicant was a member of a public association, the National Bolshevik Party. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered its dissolution. On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused an application for registration of a political party by the same name. Party members challenged the refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow. 8.  On 13 April 2006 fifteen party members, including the applicant, came to the Taganskiy District Court for a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party. The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of forty people and had had to defend themselves. According to the Government, the party members, including the applicant, had assaulted passers-by with gas guns and rubber truncheons. 9.  According to the Government, on 15 May 2006 the applicant was arrested in an attic where he was hiding. He was armed with a gas gun and offered resistance to the police. On the same day he was confronted with a witness, who identified him as one of the perpetrators of the assault. 10.  According to the applicant, on 15 May 2006 he had attended an assembly of members of the National Bolshevik Party which was held on the premises of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. At about 8 p.m. the police broke down the door and arrested the applicant together with three other participants in the assembly. They did not offer any resistance to the police. The applicant's account of the events was confirmed by affidavits by two members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. 11.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant was charged with participation in mass disorders, involving the use of gas guns, assault and battery, an offence under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 12.  On 17 May 2006 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge, “his active role in the imputed offence”, and the risk of absconding and reoffending. 13.  In their appeal submission the applicant and his counsel complained that the District Court had disregarded such pertinent facts as the absence of a criminal record, the applicant's permanent residence and employment and positive references. The conclusions that the applicant might flee or reoffend were hypothetical and were not supported by relevant facts. 14.  On 31 May 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. 15.  On an unspecified day the investigator applied to the Tverskoy District Court for an extension of the applicant's detention until 16 September 2006. He argued that there was a need for a further investigation and that it was “not opportune” to release the applicant. 16.  On 14 July 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 16 September 2006. The decision read as follows:
“The court considers that there are no reasons to refuse the investigator's request [for an extension]. It follows from the case file that [the applicant] is charged with a criminal offence punishable by more than two years' imprisonment and classified as serious under [criminal] law, he has previously been criminally prosecuted and the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on non-exonerating grounds. The court takes into account the arguments of the defendant and his counsel, however at the court hearing they did not advance convincing arguments in support of their request for release. Taking into account the extent of the investigative actions to be carried out, the period for extension proposed by the investigator ... is reasonable. The grounds for [the applicant's] detention have not ceased to exist. In view of the above, the court ... considers that there are sufficient reasons to believe that if released the defendant may abscond or impede the investigation in some other way. The court ... does not see any reason to release [the applicant] or apply a more lenient preventive measure.” 17.  The applicant appealed. He repeated his arguments advanced in the previous grounds of appeal and complained that his detention was incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 18.  On 20 September 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. 19.  On 15 September 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 16 November 2006, referring to the gravity of the charge, the need for a further investigation, and the risk of the applicant's absconding or interfering with the establishment of the truth. On 25 October 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. 20.  On 15 November 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 16 January 2007. It found that the applicant had been charged with serious criminal offences and had no residence registration or employment in Moscow or in the Moscow Region, which gave reasons to believe that he might abscond or impede the investigation. 21.  The applicant appealed. He denied involvement in any criminal activity and alleged that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated and that he was being persecuted for his membership of the National Bolshevik Party. He asked the court to release him on bail. He insisted that he had a permanent place of residence and employment in Moscow and that he had no intention of impeding the investigation. A member of Parliament offered his personal guarantee that the applicant would not abscond. On 20 December 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. 22.  On 15 January 2007 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 16 March 2007. Counsel argued before the court that the applicant had been arrested a month after the fight and had had plenty of opportunity to abscond during that month if he wished. The fact that he had not fled from justice proved that he had no such intention. He moreover submitted that a member of Parliament had offered his personal guarantee that the applicant would not abscond and that the applicant's relatives were ready to post bail for him. The court found as follows:
“The court takes into account the arguments of the defence..., however, given the social dangerousness of the [imputed] criminal offence which is classified as serious and is punishable by more than two years' imprisonment, the character of [the applicant] who has been already prosecuted for a similar offence and does not live at his registered place of residence, and the extent of the investigative actions to be carried out and the fact that the case ... involves six defendants and is complex, the court agrees with the prosecutor's arguments and considers that it is necessary to ... extend the applicant's detention for two months. The court does not see any reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure ... because the circumstances described above, namely the gravity of the charge and [the applicant's] character give reasons to believe that he may abscond or impede the investigation in some other way, if released.” 23.  On 14 February 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. 24.  On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial. 25.  On 12 March 2007 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow scheduled a preliminary hearing for 20 March 2007 and held that all the defendants should remain in custody. It found that the defendants had been charged with a serious offence committed by an organised group some members of which had not yet been identified, referred to the defendants' characters and concluded that they might abscond or intimidate the victims and witnesses. 26.  On 23 April 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 27.  On 27 March 2007 the Taganskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing. It refused the defendants' requests for release, citing the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding, reoffending or obstructing justice. In respect of the applicant's “character” the court noted that he had a registered place of residence in Bryansk and had already been prosecuted for a similar offence committed in 2002. 28.  On 30 May 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal. 29.  On 24 May 2007 the Taganskiy District Court remitted the case for a further investigation. 30.  On 29 June 2007 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 August 2007 for the same reasons as before. It also held that the case involved several defendants and was complex. The complexity of the case justified the length of the applicant's detention. 31.  In his appeal submission the applicant repeated his arguments that he had a permanent place of residence and employment in Moscow and positive references. He reiterated that a member of Parliament had vouched for his attendance and that his relatives were ready to post bail for him. On 15 August 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. 32.  On 2 August 2007 the defendants were again committed for trial. The trial started on 8 August 2007. 33.  On 11 September 2007 the applicant lodged an application for release with the Taganskiy District Court. Referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention he claimed that his detention had exceeded “a reasonable time”. He asked to be released on bail. 34.  On 12 September 2007 the Taganskiy District Court rejected his application. It noted that the applicant's arguments had already been examined and rejected many times when extension orders had been issued. It found that the grounds for the applicant's detention mentioned in the extension orders were still pertinent and it was still necessary to hold him in custody. The applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence committed by an organised group, some members of which had not yet been identified. Given the gravity of the charges against him, he might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the establishment of the truth if released. 35.  The applicant appealed. The parties did not inform the Court whether the grounds of appeal had been examined. It appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.