7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived in Narva until his arrest. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 8.  The Viru County Court convicted the applicant of repeated rape, between 2001 and 2005, of his minor daughter, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. As summary proceedings had been applied, the sentence was reduced by one third. The operative part of the judgment was delivered at a hearing on 3 November 2006. After the applicant had informed the County Court of his intention to appeal, the court delivered the full text of the judgment, which was served on the applicant on 22 November 2006. The operative provisions of the full text had been amended – in addition to the originally delivered operative part, the expulsion of the applicant after his release from prison was ordered and a ten-year prohibition on entering the country was imposed. 9.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Viru Court of Appeal, requesting his acquittal or the mitigation of the sentence, including the overturning of the expulsion order. He asked that the case be heard in his absence but in the presence of his legal-aid lawyer, B., who had also participated in the first-instance hearing. He requested, inter alia, that his former wife, the victim’s mother, be re-examined at the appellate court hearing, and asked his lawyer to put certain questions to her. 10.  The Court of Appeal scheduled its hearing for 26 February 2007 and informed the parties and the applicant’s lawyer, B. As B. already had another court hearing scheduled for that date, he asked the court to reschedule the hearing or appoint another lawyer for the applicant. The Court of Appeal appointed K. as counsel for the applicant. According to the record of the Court of Appeal’s hearing, K. challenged the assessment of the evidence and the applicant’s conviction by the first-instance court. In the event that the appellate court nevertheless found that the applicant was guilty, K. asked for a more lenient sentence for him. Lastly, he argued that no reasons had been given in the judgment for the applicant’s expulsion and that therefore the expulsion was unlawful. 11.  By a judgment delivered on 5 March 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the County Court’s judgment. Any intention to appeal to the Supreme Court had to be notified in writing to the Court of Appeal within seven days of the delivery of the judgment. An appeal to the Supreme Court, drawn up by a lawyer, had to be deposited with the Court of Appeal within thirty days of service of its judgment on the defendant. 12.  On 7 March 2007 the applicant refused to accept the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Estonian. On 15 March 2007 he received a Russian translation. On the following day he submitted a notice indicating his intention to appeal. 13.  On Friday, 13 April 2007 the applicant gave to a prison officer an appeal drawn up by himself addressed to the Supreme Court via the Court of Appeal. It was posted on the following working day, Monday, 16 April 2007. 14.  Apparently the applicant had telephoned B. from the prison to ask him to draw up an appeal to the Supreme Court. B. had replied that an appeal to the Supreme Court had to be drawn up by K., the lawyer who had represented the applicant before the Court of Appeal. According to B., he telephoned K. immediately and informed him of the applicant’s wish to lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court. According to the applicant, he also telephoned K. 15.  According to K., he did not become aware of the applicant’s wish to appeal to the Supreme Court until he was telephoned by the office of the Court of Appeal on 17 April 2007. He was informed that the applicant had submitted a notice of intention to appeal and that, accordingly, an actual appeal had to be drawn up by a lawyer. On 23 April 2007 K. lodged the appeal. He argued that the original operative part of the judgment was decisive, and the imposition of the additional sentence was unlawful and had to be quashed. He also asked for a reduction of the length of the prison sentence. 16.  On 9 May 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal drawn up by the applicant since such an appeal had to be drawn up by a lawyer. It also rejected the appeal drawn up by K. on the applicant’s behalf, noting that the last day for lodging it had been 16 April 2007 and the appeal had arrived at the Court of Appeal too late, on 24 April 2007. 17.  On 15 May 2007 K. asked the Supreme Court to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal. On 23 May 2007 the Supreme Court refused because no acceptable reasons had been put forward. 18.  In a letter sent to the Supreme Court on 7 June 2007 the applicant insisted that he had done everything he could in the circumstances and asked the Supreme Court to examine his appeal. On 21 June 2007 the Supreme Court replied by a letter reiterating that the appeals drawn up by the applicant himself and K. had been rejected and K.’s request for the restoration of the time-limit dismissed. 19.  Subsequently, the applicant made several complaints to courts, the Ministry of Justice and the Chancellor of Justice expressing his dissatisfaction with the actions of the courts and the conduct of K. in dealing with his case. 20.  On 17 September 2007 the applicant made a complaint against K. to the Estonian Bar Association (Eesti Advokatuur). He argued that because of K.’s omissions he had been deprived of his right of defence. 21.  On 13 November 2007 the Board of the Bar Association (Advokatuuri juhatus) found that there were indications that a disciplinary offence (distsiplinaarsüütegu) had been committed and proposed that the Court of Honour (aukohus) of the Bar Association initiate proceedings in respect of K. Proceedings commenced on 12 December 2007. The Court of Honour gave its decision on 6 March 2008. It considered that K. had had an obligation to take steps to find out whether the applicant wished to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. However, K. had taken no such steps between the delivery of the appellate court’s judgment (5 March 2007) and the expiry of the time-limit for lodging an appeal (16 April 2007). The Court of Honour found that K. had breached the requirements of the Code of Conduct (Eetikakoodeks) of the Estonian Bar Association and thus committed a disciplinary offence. He was given a reprimand (noomitus) as a disciplinary penalty. 22.  In the meantime, the applicant also made a complaint against B. to the Bar Association. On 13 November 2007 the Board of the Bar Association found that B.’s behaviour showed no elements of a disciplinary offence and would not therefore recommend that the Court of Honour initiate proceedings against him. 23.  Subsequently, the applicant applied for legal aid to fund the lodging of a request with the Supreme Court for the criminal proceedings to be reopened (teistmine). Such a request had to be drawn up by a lawyer. On 10 March 2008 the Harju County Court granted the applicant legal aid to obtain a lawyer’s opinion on the prospects of success of a request to the Supreme Court for the reopening of the proceedings and of an application to the European Court of Human Rights. On 8 May 2008 the lawyer appointed gave her opinion, according to which the request and application in question had no reasonable prospects of success. On the following day an assistant judge at the Harju County Court endorsed the lawyer’s opinion and terminated the legal aid granted to the applicant, without extending it to the drawing-up of the request and application referred to above. On 19 September 2008 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the County Court’s decision to terminate legal aid. 24.  Shortly thereafter the applicant applied for legal aid for the second time. On 19 January 2009 the Viru County Court granted his request. 25.  On 29 June 2009 L., a lawyer appointed under the legal-aid scheme lodged a request for the reopening of the criminal proceedings (teistmisavaldus) with the Supreme Court, together with a request for the restoration of the pertinent time-limit. In the request the severity of the prison sentence and the later amendment of the operative provisions of the convicting judgment were complained about. It was argued that such subsequent amendment of the operative provisions had been unlawful. It was submitted that the applicant wished to use his right to challenge the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the procedure for the reopening of the criminal proceedings because he had been unable to exercise his ordinary right to appeal against the said judgment. 26.  On 22 July 2009 the Supreme Court declined to accept the request. 27.  In the meantime, on 24 October 2007 the Citizenship and Migration Board (Kodakondsus- ja Migratsiooniamet) revoked the applicant’s long-term residence permit in Estonia. The applicant challenged the decision before the Tallinn Administrative Court, which on 11 April 2008 dismissed his complaint. On 30 January 2009 the Tallinn Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 2 April 2009 the Supreme Court declined to accept the applicant’s appeal.