5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Dimitrov, Ukraine. 6.  Prior to November 2000 the legal representation of defendants in criminal proceedings could be conducted only by a licensed advocate. The advocate’s rights and obligations, and the required standards of professional competence and conduct were set forth in a separate Act of Parliament (see paragraphs 39 to 42 below). Other persons, including those holding a university law degree, were excluded from providing legal representation in criminal cases. 7.  On 16 November 2000 the Constitutional Court found the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional and the parliament introduced relevant amendments to the Code in June 2001 (see paragraphs 37 and 38 below). 8.  On 4 August 2004 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident, in which his car collided with another car. On the next day, criminal proceedings concerning the accident were instituted against the applicant. 9.  On 9 November 2004 the applicant signed an agreement with Mr M. for legal representation in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. The latter was a lawyer, who held a university degree in law and who had a private legal practice, but who was not a licensed advocate. 10.  On 16 November 2004 the investigator allowed Mr M. to act as defence counsel. 11.  On 5 August 2005 the Dimitrov Local Court (“the Dimitrov Court”) held a committal hearing in the case and decided to remit the case for additional investigation on the grounds that the applicant’s right to mount a defence had been breached during the pre-trial investigation. The court noted that, in accordance with Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to provide legal assistance is conferred upon advocates and other legal specialists (the term used to describe degree-educated practicing lawyers who have not been called to the Bar), but the right of the latter to act as defence counsel required to be defined by a specific piece of legislation. As there was no such law authorising a legal specialist with a private practice, such as Mr M., to provide legal assistance in criminal matters, the decision of the investigator to allow such a specialist to take part in the case had been unlawful and therefore the applicant’s right to mount a defence had been violated. The court ordered additional investigation with the participation of an advocate. 12.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 August 2005, claiming that limiting his right to a free choice of defence counsel was contrary to the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court of 16 November 2000 (see paragraph 37 below). 13.  On 13 January 2006 the court rejected his appeal. 14.  On 24 March 2006 the investigator decided to allow Mr O., who was a licensed advocate, to take part in the criminal case as the applicant’s defence counsel. 15.  On 26 April 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation against the decisions of 5 August 2005 and 13 January 2006. 16.  By letter of 3 May 2006, in reply to a request by the applicant that criminal proceedings be instituted against the relevant judge of the Dimitrov Court for alleged deliberate failure to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the right to a free choice of defence counsel, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the court had rightly decided to remove Mr M. from the applicant’s case because he was not a licensed advocate. 17.  On 11 May 2006 the applicant asked the Dimitrov Court to remit his case for further investigation on the grounds that his right to mount a defence had been violated. 18.  On the same date the court rejected his request. The court established that the applicant’s right to mount a defence had been complied with as a result of the participation of Mr O. in the additional investigation. 19.  On 12 May 2006 the applicant notified the court that Mr O. was not his defence counsel and that he had seen him only once, in April 2006, when he had pointed out to the investigator that he needed defence counsel but did not wish to be represented by Mr O. because he had not been freely chosen by him. Therefore, he contested the court’s conclusion that his right to mount a defence had been complied with. 20.  On 22 May 2006 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal on the grounds that decisions as to the remittal of a criminal case were not subject to appeal in cassation. 21.  On 17 July 2006 the Dimitrov Court rejected a request by the applicant that Mr M. be allowed to represent him as his defence counsel because the law did not provide that a private practice lawyer could act as defence counsel in a criminal case. At the same time, the court accepted the refusal by the applicant to have Mr O. appointed as his defence counsel. 22.  In July 2006 the same court returned the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 17 July 2006 without consideration on the grounds that the contested decision was not subject to a separate appeal. 23.  By a decision of 6 September 2006, following another request by the applicant to institute criminal proceedings against the judge of the Dimitrov Court for alleged failure to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Dimitrov Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings. 24.  On 12 March 2007 the Krasnoarmeysk Local Court rejected an appeal by the applicant against the prosecutor’s decision of 6 September 2006. The decision of 12 March 2007 was upheld by the Donestk Regional Court of Appeal on 14 August 2007. 25.  During a court hearing on 13 March 2007 the Dimitrov Court examined a request from the applicant asking it to accept his dismissal of a lawyer, Mr K., who had been appointed by the court to represent him after the decision of 17 July 2006, and to appoint his wife as his representative. The court allowed his request in part. It allowed the applicant’s wife to be his defence counsel but rejected the applicant’s dismissal of Mr K. on the grounds that the applicant had complained on numerous occasions about a violation of his right to mount a defence and therefore determined that he should be legally represented. 26.  On 10 April 2007 the applicant wrote a letter dismissing Mr K. He claimed that the appointed advocates, Mr O. and Mr K., had only formally represented him and had not properly defended him. He noted, however, that he did need defence counsel, although not a formally admitted one. 27.  On the same date the court rejected the applicant’s dismissal letter, stating that he had claimed that he needed defence counsel. 28.  On 21 March 2008 the court rejected the applicant’s request to remit the case for additional investigation. It also rejected the applicant’s dismissal of Mr K. and the applicant’s request asking that Mr M. be allowed to take part in the case again. 29.  On 27 March 2008 the applicant was found guilty of a breach of traffic rules which had caused medium bodily injury and sentenced to three years’ restraint of liberty (обмеження волі). However, he was discharged from serving his sentence owing to the expiry of the statutory time-limit for the prosecution. He was also ordered to pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the victims. 30.  The applicant appealed against that judgment, claiming, inter alia, that his right to a free choice of defence counsel had been violated. 31.  On 13 June 2008 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 27 March 2008 in part. The court noted that there had been no procedural violations that would require the judgment to be quashed. At the same time, the quantum of damages had not been substantiated and therefore the court remitted this part of the case for fresh consideration in separate civil proceedings. 32.  The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court, claiming, inter alia, that his right to a free choice of defence counsel had been violated. 33.  On 24 February 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. In reply to the applicant’s complaint of a violation of his right to mount a defence, the court noted:
“It is not worth paying attention to the arguments [submitted in] the cassation appeal by the convict that his right to mount a defence was violated, because, in rejecting the request of the convict, the court reasonably noted that, in accordance with Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, only a person who is the bearer of an advocate’s licence for practice in Ukraine is allowed to act as defence counsel and M. is not the bearer of such a licence.” 34.  By a judgment of 5 February 2009 of the Dimitrov Court, the applicant was ordered to pay compensation to the victims of the traffic accident for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to them. 35.  On 29 April and 30 June 2009 respectively the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 5 February 2009.