5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lived, before his arrest, in the town of Taganrog in the Rostov Region. 6.  In June 1998 the Taganrog town police (“the Town Police”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of fraud, fraudulent obtaining of loans, misuse of official position and forgery. 7.  By a judgment of 22 March 2000 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”), composed of Judge U. and lay judges Kh. and R., established that in 1997 the applicant, as the manager of a municipal enterprise, had violated various licensing regulations and submitted false information when applying for a loan. The court convicted the applicant of fraud and acquiring a loan on the basis of false information and sentenced him to five years and six months’ conditional imprisonment, with three years’ probation. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. The applicant remained at liberty. 8.  On 4 December 2001 the Town Police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of a further episode of aggravated fraud against D., committed by the applicant in concert with B. The applicant and B. both remained at large under an undertaking not to leave their town of residence. 9.  On an unspecified date the case was sent for trial by the Town Court.
(a)  The detention order of 15 April 2002 10.  On 15 April 2002 the Town Court, composed of judge Dz. and lay judges V. and Sh., remanded the applicant and his co-accused in custody. The remand order, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
“... The accused B. and [the applicant] have been charged with deceitfully acquiring from D. 20,000 United States dollars ... They denied the charges in court.
Moreover, [the applicant] insulted the victim, calling him a “stinker”; [the applicant’s] conduct was threatening. The prosecutor has applied for his remand in custody. The [c]ourt considers the application well-founded.
Detention should be chosen as a preventive measure in respect of [the applicant], as well as B., because, if at large, they could influence the course of the proceedings and the witnesses, including [illegible] the victim.” 11.  The applicant did not appeal against the order.
(b)  Conviction 12.  By a judgment of 16 April 2002 the Town Court, with Judge Dz. presiding, assisted by lay judges V. and Sh., found the applicant guilty of fraud committed in concert with B. against D. in August-September 2001. Taking into account the applicant’s previous conviction and the fact that he had committed the crime while on probation, the court imposed on him an aggregate sentence of six years’ imprisonment. 13.  On 4 June 2002 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the conviction on appeal. 14.  On 4 September 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium Court”) set aside the judgment of 22 March 2000 by way of supervisory review on the ground that lay judges Kh. and R. had unlawfully participated in the examination of the applicant’s case. The case was remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 15.  On 17 September 2003 the applicant lodged with the Presidium Court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 16 April 2002, as upheld on appeal, as well as of the detention order of 15 April 2002. 16.  On 20 November 2003 the Presidium Court set aside the judgment of 16 April 2002, as upheld on appeal, and remitted the case to the first‑instance court for a fresh examination. The issue was examined in the presence of the prosecutor; the applicant and his lawyers were absent. The court held, in particular, that the composition of the court which had delivered the judgment of 16 April 2002 had been unlawful because lay judge V. had been assigned to work not with the presiding judge Dz. but with another judge of the Town Court. Moreover, V.’s term of service had exceeded the statutory fixed limit. Hence, her participation in the examination of the applicant’s case had been unlawful. That breach of the rules of criminal procedure was an unconditional ground for quashing the conviction and sending the case for a fresh examination. Lastly, the court noted that it found no reason to vary the preventive measure in the form of detention “chosen in respect of [the applicant] by the court” and held that it was to remain unchanged, without providing any further details in that regard. The court did not set a time-limit for the applicant’s detention. The decision was silent on the applicant’s arguments concerning the detention order of 15 April 2002. 17.  On 15 January 2004 the criminal cases against the applicant were joined. 18.  On 31 March 2004 the Town Court convicted the applicant of two counts of fraud and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The court deducted the time the applicant had spent in detention from 15 April 2002 to 31 March 2004 from the sentence. 19.  On 25 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. 20.  On 23 December 2003, at the applicant’s request, the Town Court held a preliminary hearing in his criminal case concerning the second fraud episode. By a decision of the same date it granted the applicant’s request and remitted the case to the prosecutor with a view to joining the two criminal cases against him. It also dismissed a request by the applicant for release, stating that the Presidium Court had ordered that the preventive measure in respect of him and his co-accused was to remain unchanged. In accordance with Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), the applicant’s detention pending trial could be extended up to six months and accordingly the Town Court, which had received the case file on 2 December 2003, was acting in compliance with that provision. It further held that there were no grounds for choosing a more lenient preventive measure because both accused were charged with a serious crime and if they remained at large might interfere with the proceedings. The decision did not set a time-limit for the applicant’s detention. 21.  The applicant appealed, claiming, among other things, that the time‑limits for his detention had expired and that the authorities were not acting with the requisite diligence in conducting the criminal proceedings against him. 22.  On 15 January 2004 the prosecutor joined the two criminal cases against the applicant. The new case was assigned the number 9883479 and on an unspecified date the prosecutor sent it to the Town Court. 23.  On 10 February 2004 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 December 2003. It noted, among other things, that, contrary to the applicant’s allegation, there had been no breach of Articles 109 and 255 of the CCrP because on 2 December 2003 the Town Court had received his case after the quashing of the conviction by way of supervisory review and because it had neither chosen the preventive measure in respect of the applicant nor extended his detention under those provisions. 24.  By a decision of 26 February 2004 the Town Court listed a hearing in the applicant’s case. By the same decision it terminated the applicant’s prosecution in respect of all charges other than the two counts of fraud because they had become time-barred. The court further dismissed the applicant’s request for release with reference to Article 255 of the CCrP. It noted that it saw no reason to vary the preventive measure in respect of either accused, or to choose a more lenient preventive measure, given the gravity of the charges against them and the possibility that, if at large, they might pervert the course of justice. The decision did not set any time-limits for the applicant’s detention. 25.  On 13 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. It stated that the applicant and his co-accused were charged with a serious crime and there were grounds to believe that they might abscond or “interfere with the establishment of the truth”. It also noted that the detention of the applicant and his co-accused had been authorised by a court and that their conviction had been quashed by way of supervisory review. Their criminal case had then been remitted for a fresh trial to the Town Court, with an order that the preventive measure was to remain unchanged.