4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Kaunas. 5.  The applicant was a director of a holding company. 6.  In 1994 the applicant became a suspect in a criminal case of fraud. 7.  By investigator's decisions of 29 October 1994, 13 and 23 August 1996 the applicant's property was seized. 8.  On 27 August 1996 the applicant was charged with unlawful financial activities, fraud, and breaching the currency and securities regulations. Four other persons were charged as his accomplices. It was suspected that the co-accused had misappropriated large sums of money which had been deposited by private persons and companies. More than hundred victims were identified. 9.  On 15 October 1998 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the applicant, sentencing him to four years' imprisonment under strict regime. The applicant was arrested in open court. 10.  On 22 March 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court amended the judgment, acquitting the applicant of some charges and reducing the sentence to two years' imprisonment. 11.  On 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts' judgments due to various procedural irregularities. It was established that the applicant had not been given access to the case file, and that the reasoning in the judgments was too vague. The case was returned for fresh examination. The applicant's detention was replaced by an obligation to stay in his place of residence. 12.  On 25 October 1999 the Kaunas City District Court returned the case for an additional pre-trial investigation. On an unspecified date, the case was transmitted to the court for trial. 13.  On 5 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court again decided to remit the case for additional investigatory measures. 14.  On 25 March 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the decision, ordering the first instance court to proceed to trial. 15.  On 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision. 16.  On 3 December 2004 the Kaunas City District Court terminated the criminal proceedings because the statutory time-limit for prosecution had lapsed. The civil claims against the applicant and the co-accused were left unexamined. The court also lifted the seizure of the applicant's property. 17.  The applicant appealed against the decision to terminate the proceedings on procedural basis, arguing that he should have been acquitted. By a final ruling of 10 November 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to examine the appeal as the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging it. 18.  The applicant also brought an action for damages, alleging a judicial error resulting in his imprisonment under the strict regime. His action was rejected as unsubstantiated by the Panevėžys Regional Court on 30 September 1999, the Court of Appeal on 23 November 1999, and finally the Supreme Court on 22 March 2000.