7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Järvenpää. 8.  On 11 October 1993 the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen) interrogated the applicant as a suspect in the offence of aiding and abetting an aggravated embezzlement. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 15 December 1993 and the file was transmitted to the public prosecutor on 17 December 1993. 9.  The indictment was served on the applicant on 14 March 1996. On 9 September 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against him and three other defendants before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Tuusula. The prosecutor charged two of them with aggravated embezzlement and the applicant and another co-defendant with aiding and abetting the said offence between 9 June and 22 August 1989. The complainant, now a limited liability company to which the ownership of a bank group had been transferred, joined the proceedings and presented an accessory claim for damages and legal costs. All defendants denied the charges. 10.  On 10 September 1996 the prosecutor requested an adjournment in order to present further evidence. The case was adjourned until 21 November 1996, when seven prosecution witnesses gave evidence. The case was then adjourned until 30 January 1997 so as to enable the prosecutor to call additional witnesses. At that third hearing the District Court heard evidence from three further prosecution witnesses. 11.  At the fourth hearing on 21 March 1997 a witness called by one of the defendants gave evidence. The prosecutor and one of the defendants requested a further adjournment which was granted. 12.  At the fifth hearing on 23 May 1997 the District Court took evidence from a prosecution witness and three defence witnesses. At the request of one of the defendants the case was adjourned. 13.  At the sixth hearing on 27 June 1997 the District Court heard two further defence witnesses. One of the defendants asked for a further adjournment in order to present additional evidence. 14.  At the seventh hearing on 15 August 1997 a further defence witness gave evidence. At the request of two of the defendants the case was adjourned. 15.  At the eighth hearing on 26 September 1997 two defence witnesses gave evidence. The applicant requested an immediate dismissal of the charge against him, arguing that it was not detailed enough and did not describe the essential elements of the offence he had been charged with. On the District Court’s refusal, he asked that the proceedings be suspended in anticipation of the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt) of Helsinki in a related matter. The District Court refused this request as well but adjourned the case in order to allow the parties to submit their closing arguments. 16.  At the ninth hearing on 13 November 1997 the applicant requested that the complainant be ordered to reimburse his legal costs. 17.  In its judgment of 13 November 1997 the District Court acquitted all defendants and dismissed the complainant’s accessory claim for damages. Noting that the complainant had merely joined the proceedings brought by the public prosecutor, the court also dismissed the applicant’s claim that the complainant be ordered to reimburse his legal costs. 18.  The prosecutor, the complainant, the applicant and a co-defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which rejected their appeals on 31 December 1998. 19.  The applicant’s acquittal acquired legal force on 2 March 1999, when the prosecutor’s and the complainant’s deadline for seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) expired. The applicant and a co-defendant sought similar leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s refusal of their costs claim. Such leave was refused on 28 September 1999.