4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Lopatinskiy in the Moscow Region. 5.  It appears that the applicant was a labour inspector in the Voskresensk supervisory district of the State labour inspectorate of the Moscow Region (Государственная инспекция труда в Московской области). 6.  On 29 December 1999, acting upon a complaint from a third party that the applicant was exacting a bribe from him, the authorities carried out an operation in the course of which the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. 7.  In a decision of the same date an investigator of the Voskresenk Town Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region referred to the materials obtained from the police and brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and her colleague on suspicion of bribery. 8.  On 31 December 1999 the applicant was released from custody. It does not appear that she challenged her arrest and detention before the domestic courts. 9.  On 29 June 2000 the time-limits for preliminary investigation were extended until 29 September 2000. 10.  By a decision of 14 September 2000 the investigator suspended the investigation because of the applicant's treatment at a hospital. On 25 October 2000 the investigation resumed. The applicant submits that she was unaware of the said decisions and was fully available. 11.  On 31 October 2000 the investigator charged the applicant with bribery and several counts of abuse of power as a public servant and imposed on her an undertaking not to leave her place of residence. 12.  It appears that on 27 April 2001 the bill of indictment was sent to the Voskresensk Town Court (“the Town Court”) together with the case file. 13.  The Government submitted that the criminal case reached the court on 23 May 2001. 14.  On 17 May 2001 the prosecutor seized the applicant's property. There is no indication that the applicant challenged this decision in a court. 15.  In a decision (постановление) of 5 June 2001 the Town Court pointed out several shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation and remitted the case to the investigator. 16.  On 25 July 2001 the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed this decision upon the prosecutor's appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court. 17.  The case file reached the Town Court on 23 August 2001. 18.  The court decided to hold the next hearing in the case on 24 October 2001. Since most of the witnesses failed to appear, the court adjourned the hearing until 1 November 2001 and decided to secure attendance of the witnesses by force. 19.  On 5 November 2001 the Town Court again remitted the case to the prosecutor for an additional investigation. 20.  This decision was upheld on appeal on 19 February 2002. 21.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant was apparently furnished with a new bill of indictment and from 10 June to 3 July 2002 she and her counsel had access to the case file. 22.  On 22 June 2002 the case file was returned for examination on the merits to the trial court. 23.  The case file reached the Town Court on 25 July 2002. 24.  In a decision of 29 July 2002 the court decided to hold the first hearing in the case on 12 August 2002. Since the authorities failed to serve the bill of indictment on the applicant's co-defendant in a timely fashion, the hearing of 12 August 2002 was delayed until 2 September 2002. 25.  In a decision of 2 September 2002 the court scheduled a hearing for 21 October 2002. Apparently the applicant failed to appear on that date and the hearing was adjourned. 26.  On 26 October 2002 the hearing did not take place because of the need to carry out an expert examination. The case was postponed until 20 February 2003. 27.  The hearings of 20 February and 27 March 2003 did not take place in view of the absence of a defendant, the victim and the need to summon some witnesses. 28.  Between 17 and 28 April 2003 the court examined the applicant's criminal case and on the latter date it rendered a 50-page judgment, convicting the applicant on six counts of abuse of power and one count of bribery. The court sentenced her to three years and nine months' imprisonment and prohibited her from holding administrative and supervisory posts. By the same judgment the applicant's co-defendant was convicted on 19 counts of abuse of power. The court referred to oral evidence from some 45 witnesses and the victim, records of confrontations and a considerable bulk of other documentary evidence, such as money transfer orders, invoices, audit records, etc. 29.  By the same decision the court lifted the seizure of the applicant's property. 30.  The applicant was detained in the court room. 31.  Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed against the judgment. 32.  On 1 July 2003 the Regional Court quashed the trial-court judgment and remitted the case to the court below. It also ordered the applicant's release pending trial. 33.  The applicant was released on 4 July 2003. 34.  Between September 2003 and November 2004 the examination of the case was delayed in the Town Court with reference to various reasons, such as the absence of witnesses, the applicant's illnesses, the failure of the accused and the defence to attend as well as the decision to grant a challenge by the defence directed against the prosecution. 35.  On 8 November 2004 the court decided to hold the next hearing on 11 November 2004. The hearing did not take place as the prosecution failed to attend. 36.  The hearing of 12 November 2004 was adjourned because of the court's failure properly to summon the prosecution. 37.  According to the Government, between 15 November 2004 and 15 March 2005 the court examined the case. 38.  On 15 March 2005 the court concluded that the bill of indictment contained deficiencies warranting the remittal of the case to the prosecutor for an additional investigation. It remitted the case to the prosecutor for rectification of the shortcomings within five days. 39.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant's case was returned to the court. 40.  The court decided to hold a preliminary hearing in the case on 13 June 2005. 41.  It appears that the co-accused changed his lawyer. As a result, the hearing was postponed until 11 July 2005 and then until 29 August 2005. The hearing of 29 August 2005 did not take place because of the failure of counsel to appear. The hearing was adjourned until 7 September 2005. 42.  In a decision of 9 September 2005 the Town Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant in respect of some of the facts, with reference to the statutory time bar. 43.  Thereafter the examination of the case was adjourned in order “to give the prosecution some time to study the case”. 44.  On 26 October 2005 the applicant was ill and failed to appear. As a result, it was decided to hold the next hearing on 5 December 2005. 45.  In a judgment of 27 December 2005 the Town Court acquitted the applicant on all charges. The court also recognised the applicant's right to rehabilitation in connection with wrongful criminal prosecution under Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 46.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 9 March 2006. On the same date the Regional Court made a separate ruling in which it referred to the delays in the proceedings and acknowledged that the applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time had been breached. The ruling called on the President of the Regional Court to take appropriate measures in respect of the judges responsible. 47.  In addition, on 4 April 2006 the President of the Moscow Regional Court applied to the Qualification Board of the Moscow Region for leave to discipline the judge of the Town Court who had been responsible for delays in the proceedings. 48.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied to the court for compensation in connection with her acquittal. She also requested the court to order the prosecutor's office to make apologies to her in this connection. 49.  In a judgment of 24 July 2006 the Town Court examined and rejected the applicant's claims for compensation in connection with the wrongful prosecution. The court noted that the proceedings in respect of some of the charges against her had been discontinued on 9 September 2005 on account of time-limits. Since the statutory time bar was not a “rehabilitating” ground for discontinuance of the proceedings, it could not be said that the applicant had been fully acquitted on the entirety of the charges against her. The court noted that under the domestic law only those acquitted on the entirety of the charges against them could apply for compensation in connection with wrongful prosecution under Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and rejected the applicant's claims for compensation accordingly. 50.  This judgment was upheld by the Moscow Regional Court on appeal on 4 October 2006. 51.  In a decision of 21 August 2006 the Town Court granted the applicant's request for apologies and ordered the prosecutor to apologise to the applicant on behalf of the State in so far as her acquittal was concerned. The court noted that the apologies should be limited to the charges in respect of which the acquittal had been pronounced and that they would not concern the charges in respect of which the proceedings had been discontinued on account of the statutory time bar. This decision was not appealed against by the parties and entered into force on 1 September 2006. 52.  In a letter of 14 September 2006 the Prosecutor of the town of Voskresensk made the requested apologies to the applicant and thus complied with the decision of 21 August 2006. 53.  In a decision of 16 October 2006 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage as unfounded. The court ruled that the applicant had failed to substantiate her demands. 54.  The applicant appealed against this decision. The outcome of these proceedings is unclear. 55.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant informed the Prosecutor's Office of Voskresensk that the police officers who took part in the investigation of her criminal case had acted unlawfully and requested that they be prosecuted. 56.  In a letter dated 4 June 2004 she was advised that the criminal proceedings in her case were pending and that the prosecutor's office was not entitled to intervene. 57.  On 9 September 2004 the Moscow City Court confirmed that the prosecutor's office was not entitled to intervene.