5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Tõrva. 6.  The applicant was charged with economic offences, committed between 1995 and 2001, whereby damage exceeding 190 million Estonian kroons (EEK) (approximately 12 million euros (EUR)) had been caused. 7.  On 13 December 2001 the Tartu County Court (maakohus) authorised the applicant’s detention until 3 March 2002. 8.  On 25 January 2002 the County Court agreed to release the applicant on bail set at EEK 1,000,000 (EUR 64,000). According to the court order the applicant was prohibited from leaving his permanent or temporary place of residence unless authorised by an investigator, prosecutor or court (Section 71-1 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminaalmenetluse koodeks)). The prosecutor’s appeal against the applicant’s release was dismissed by the Tartu Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus) on 5 February 2002. 9.  The County Court started the examination of the charges against the applicant in September 2002. 10.  On 15 October 2003 the prosecutor requested the County Court to revoke the bail and to order the applicant’s custody. It appears that the applicant, who had suffered from a head injury, had failed to appear at a hearing and that his lawyer had submitted a medical certificate to the court. According to the certificate, the applicant’s head wound had healed. Although the applicant had troublesome pain in his head and neck, following concussion, the doctor found it difficult to assess whether he could participate in a court hearing. Apparently the County Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request to take the applicant into custody. 11.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant did not appear at a hearing scheduled for that date. His lawyer presented the court with a medical certificate according to which the applicant had paid a visit to his doctor at 8.30 that same morning. The applicant had provided to his doctor another medical certificate, issued on 24 March 2004 in Germany, according to which he had been diagnosed with concussion and had had a head wound requiring stitching. The applicant’s doctor had prescribed that he stay at home for a fortnight and avoid strain. She had confirmed that he would not be able to participate in a court hearing on 29 March 2004. 12.  The prosecutor presented the court with a copy of a fax according to which the applicant had left Estonia on 24 March and had returned to the country on 27 March 2004. She was of the opinion that by leaving the country without authorisation the applicant had breached the conditions of his bail and that it was therefore necessary to take him into custody. 13.  The applicant’s lawyer argued against the custody. He conceded that the applicant had been in Germany – where his parents were living – for three days. However, as he had not been placed under house arrest, he had not been in breach of the bail conditions. 14.  By a decision of 30 March 2004 the County Court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention. The court noted that in addition to the period referred to above, the applicant had left the country from 25 October to 28 October 2002 and on 17 January 2004. The court concluded that bail was not a sufficient measure to ensure his presence at the hearings and that it was necessary to take him immediately into custody. 15.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was arrested at his home and taken into custody. 16.  On 2 April 2004 both the applicant and his lawyer appealed against the County Court’s decision. They argued that the applicant’s non-compliance with Article 71-1 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been of a purely formal character and that his failure to appear at the hearing had been caused by health reasons rather than a formal breach of the bail conditions. Moreover, the County Court had not established whether there had existed grounds – such as prevention of crime, bringing a suspect before authorities or preventing his fleeing – for depriving the applicant of his liberty. 17.  On 6 April 2004 a judge of the Tartu Court of Appeal made a ruling scheduling a public hearing for 16 April 2004. In the ruling it was stated that the prosecutor, the applicant and his lawyer should be notified about the hearing, with a note that failure of the parties to appear would not prevent the hearing of the matter. On the same date the Court of Appeal sent summonses to the applicant and his lawyer. 18.  A hearing before the Tartu Court of Appeal took place on 16 April 2004. According to the record of the hearing, the applicant and his lawyer had been informed of the time and place of the hearing with a note that their participation in the hearing would not be mandatory. The prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer were present at the hearing. The presiding judge asked for their opinion on whether it was possible to hear the matter; both the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer replied in the affirmative. 19.  In the applicant’s submission, his request to be taken to the Court of Appeal had been refused by the prison authorities and a judge of the appellate court had told his lawyer that it was the practice of the court to hear such cases in the accused’s absence. The record of the hearing does not contain any such remarks. 20.  By a decision of 16 April 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. It found that the applicant had not complied with the conditions of his bail. Moreover, it had been presented with evidence according to which on 30 March 2004 at noon the applicant had been in a public house in Tallinn, whereas his doctor had prescribed that he stay at home and avoid strain. The court noted that bail was a measure adopted in lieu of detention. Accordingly, as long as the bail remained applicable, there were grounds for deprivation of the applicant’s liberty and the lower court had had no obligation to establish once more whether such grounds existed. The court stated that the question of reimbursement of the bail money would be resolved later, at the same time as the determination of the applicant’s guilt. This decision was final. 21.  On 5 May 2004 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) refused the applicant leave to lodge “an application for correcting court errors” (kohtuvigade parandamise avaldus) against the County Court’s decision of 30 March 2004 and the Court of Appeal’s decision of 16 April 2004. 22.  In the meantime, on 26 April 2004, at a hearing before the County Court, the applicant again requested his release on bail. He was of the opinion that had he been present and able to present his arguments to the courts at the hearings where the revocation of his bail had been decided, the courts would not have granted the prosecutor’s request to take him into custody. 23.  By a decision of 27 April 2004 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. It mainly referred to the reasons that had been set out in the County Court’s decision of 30 March 2004. 24.  By a judgment of 27 December 2004, in simplified proceedings, the County Court convicted the applicant as agreed between him and the prosecutor. He was sentenced to three years’ and six months’ imprisonment, less the time already spent in custody. The bail money was to be returned when the judgment became final.