4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki. 5.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was questioned as a suspect regarding an aggravated tax offence. 6.  The charges became pending before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 17 November 1997. 7.  In the period between 20 March 1998 and 17 May 2001 the bailiff unsuccessfully tried to reach the applicant at least three times: once in March 1998 at an address in Helsinki and twice, in January and June 1999, via the post box used by the applicant's company in Helsinki. It appears from the documents provided that the applicant called the bailiff on or after 20 March 1998 informing him of a new address outside Helsinki. However, there is no indication that the bailiff tried to reach him at that or any other address than those mentioned above. 8.  As is customary in cases where a person cannot be found by the bailiff, a warrant for the applicant's arrest was issued on 24 June 1999. The warrant was subsequently renewed at regular intervals. 9.  On 17 May 2001, while serving a prior prison sentence, the applicant was located by the bailiff and served with the summons. 10.  The District Court held preparatory hearings on 5 December 2002 and 11 February 2003. The main hearing was organised over two days, on 24 and 26 March 2003. The applicant and four witnesses were heard. Two of those witnesses testified on the applicant's behalf. 11.  On 5 May 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of an accounting offence and aggravated tax fraud. The charges with regard to a third offence had been withdrawn due to its having become time-barred. The applicant was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment. 12.   In his appeal of 1 June 2003 the applicant requested an oral hearing, at which the four previously heard witnesses would be heard on the same matters as at first instance. In the same observations, however, he stated that, due to the length of time that had passed, the witnesses had not been able to recall, before the District Court, the relevant events which had taken place from 1992 to 1994. He also argued that the charges should be dismissed owing to the length of the proceedings. In his additional observations of 6 July 2004, the applicant requested that the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) hear two entirely new witnesses. 13.  On 29 June 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the request for an oral hearing as manifestly unnecessary since no issue had arisen as to the assessment of the credibility of the oral evidence and as the matter could be decided on the basis of the written material presented during the proceedings. The lower court's judgment was upheld but instead of an unconditional prison term of seven months the applicant was sentenced to 180 hours of community service. 14.  On 29 August 2005 the applicant requested leave to appeal. The request was denied on 7 February 2006 by the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).