6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Yekaterinburg in the Sverdlovsk Region. 7.  In May 1993 the bodies of three persons were found in a street of Yekaterinburg.  On 29 March 1994 the applicant was charged with two counts of manslaughter and unlawful possession of weapons. Ten days later a deputy prosecutor of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District of Yekaterinburg discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant because he was found to have acted in self-defence and the use of force had been justified. 8.  On 14 November 1997 the applicant was charged with having severely injured Mr M. 9.  In February 1998 the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor re-opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation. On 17 November 1998 an investigator of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District prosecutor's office dropped two of the three charges. 10.  In December 1998 the two sets of criminal proceedings were joined and the applicant was issued with the bill of indictment. He was charged with one count of manslaughter, causing severe bodily injuries and unlawful restriction of liberty. 11.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant was committed for trial and on 1 December 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg listed the first hearing for 17 October 2000. 12.  At the hearing of 17 October 2000, to which the applicant's lawyer was not called, the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court authorised the applicant's arrest, reasoning as follows:
“Mr Solovyev is charged with murder, intentional infliction of severe injuries... and unlawful confinement...
Before the hearing they [the applicant and his co-defendant] unsuccessfully sought the removal of the presiding judge and influenced participants in the proceedings, including the victim, Mr M., who asked the court not to examine the case because the defendants had not committed any criminal offence against him. They also appealed against the decision by which a court hearing had been fixed.
Mr Solovyev is charged with serious and especially serious criminal offences... When they [the applicant and his co-defendant] had been under a written undertaking not to leave the town, they had attempted to obstruct the thorough and full examination of the case. A prosecutor lodged a request in that connection; having regard to the above-mentioned considerations, the court finds it substantiated and authorises... Mr Solovyev's placement in custody.”
The District Court listed the next hearing for 18 December 2000. The decision of 17 October 2000 was upheld on 9 November 2000 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. The applicant was taken into custody on 17 October 2000. 13.  At the hearing of 18 December 2000 the applicant and his lawyer sought the removal of the entire bench including the presiding judge. The District Court dismissed those requests and adjourned the proceedings until 1 March 2001 because the victim had come to the hearing in an inebriated state. On 9 February 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld that decision. 14.  On 1 March 2001 the presiding judge, in an interlocutory decision, extended the applicant's detention and excused himself from the proceedings because he felt offended by the conduct of the applicant's counsel. No reasons or time-limit for the extension were given. The judge noted that the decision was not amenable to appeal. 15.  On 17 April 2001 a new presiding judge listed a hearing for 7 June 2001 and extended the applicant's detention, without citing any grounds or setting a time-limit. 16.  The applicant alleged that he had not received that decision. Nonetheless, he had appealed against it on 23 and 28 May 2001. 17.  On 18 July 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision, without giving any reasons for the applicant's continued detention. 4.  Interlocutory decisions and the detention order of 7 June 2001
(a)  Rejection of a request for an additional investigative measure 18.  On 4 June 2001 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for an additional investigative measure. The applicant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 18 July 2001.
(b)  Adjournment of the proceedings and detention order of 7 June 2001 19.  On 7 June 2001 the applicant asked the District Court to adjourn the proceedings because his lawyer was on leave. The court acceded to his request, adjourned the proceedings and extended his detention on remand. No reasons or time-limit for the extension were given. 20.  The applicant appealed against the decision, claiming that it had not been given by a lawful tribunal. 21.  On 20 July 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant was not taken to the appeal hearing. 22.  On 3 September 2001 Ms Sulina was appointed to act as the applicant's counsel. 23.  At the hearing held on the following day the applicant, assisted by Ms Sulina, asked the District Court to release him against a written undertaking not to leave the town and to replace Ms Sulina with Mr Ratushniy and Ms Gagarina, representatives of a certain NGO.  The Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court dismissed his petition for release on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences and he did not admit his guilt. The District Court held that “there were no grounds to change the measure of restraint”. It refused the appointment of Mr Ratushniy and Ms Gagarina because they had not produced written authority to act. 24.  On 5 September 2001 the applicant again asked the court to appoint Mr Ratushniy and Ms Gagarina. That hearing was postponed to allow the applicant and his co-defendant to find new lawyers. 25.  According to the applicant, on 11 September 2001 he submitted his statement of appeal against the decision of 4 September 2001 to the administration of the remand facility where he was being held. On 12 September 2001 he sent a letter by registered mail to the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. However, his appeal was never considered. 26.  The Government submitted that the applicant's co-defendant, but not the applicant, had appealed against the decision of 4 September 2001. 27.  On 5 September 2001 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court held that the applicant should pay 345 Russian roubles (RUR; approximately 13 euros (EUR)) in respect of certain legal fees. The applicant alleged that he had not been promptly informed about that decision and that he had only appealed against it on 6 November 2001. He claimed that his appeal had not been examined.
(b)  Adjournment of the proceedings until 1 April 2002 28.  At the hearing of 17 December 2001 the applicant successfully petitioned for an adjournment because his lawyer had defaulted. The hearing was postponed until the following day. 29.  On 19 December 2001 the District Court, upon the applicant's request, adjourned the proceedings until 24 December 2001 to enable the applicant and his new lawyer to read the case file together. 30.  The subsequent hearings of 24 and 25 December 2001 were postponed because the lawyer for the applicant's co-defendant had defaulted. The proceedings were stayed until 1 April 2002. The applicant claimed that on 31 December 2001 he had appealed against the decisions of 24 and 25 December 2001, but his appeals were never examined. 31.  At the hearing of 1 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer asked the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court to remit the case for further investigation and release the applicant on bail or on a written undertaking not to leave the town. The District Court refused the requests, on the ground that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and did not admit his guilt. 32.  On 4 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the decision of 1 April 2002, but his appeal was never considered. The Government submitted that on 26 July 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court had extended the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 1 April 2002. However, there was no evidence in the case file that such an appeal had, in fact, been lodged. 33.  On 27 May 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court gave interlocutory decisions, whereby it dismissed the applicant's request for the bench to stand down, remitted the case for further investigation and extended his detention on remand. As regards the grounds for the extension, the District Court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and that he did not admit his guilt and had threatened the victim. 34.  The applicant lodged an appeal. 35.  On 17 July 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for correction of procedural defects. The Regional Court held that in the course of the appeal hearing the applicant's lawyer had also complained that on 4 April 2002 he had lodged an appeal against the decision of the District Court of 1 April 2002. The lawyer had provided the Regional Court with a copy of his statement of appeal bearing a stamp of the District Court and showing that it had received the statement on 4 April 2002. The Regional Court instructed the District Court to investigate whether that statement had been lodged in accordance with the requirements established in law. 36.  On 21 August 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decisions of 27 May 2002 in the part concerning the request for the bench to stand down and the extension of the applicant's detention. However, it did not accept the District Court's view that the case was to be returned for further investigation and instructed it to examine the merits of the charges. The applicant's lawyer was not called to the hearing. 37.  On 1 July 2002 a new Code of Criminal Procedure became effective. 38.  On the same day the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002, holding that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and that he would not admit his guilt and had threatened the victim. The applicant and his lawyer were not called to the hearing. The representative of the prosecution authorities did not attend. 39.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 1 July 2002, also alleging that he had only received a copy of that decision on 4 July 2002. The applicant provided the Court with a copy of his statement of appeal. The document bore the stamp of the District Court indicating that the appeal was lodged on 12 July 2002. 40.  On 21 August 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court refused to examine the applicant's appeal against the decision of 1 July 2002 and remitted the matter to the District Court. The Regional Court held as follows:
“In a decision [of 1 July 2002] Mr Solovyev's detention on remand was extended until 1 October 2002.
Mr Solovyev lodged several appeals against that decision; [they] were lodged outside the time-limit established by the law. From the case file it cannot be established when Mr Solovyev learned about that decision. Moreover, his lawyer, Mr Khaymin, participating in the appeal hearing,... has learnt about that decision for the first time and has expressed his wish to appeal against it ...
In view of the foregoing, [the court] decides to stay the appeal proceedings, establish the date when Mr Solovyev was issued with the decision [of 1 July 2002], include the notification in the case file, invite him to apply for extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against that decision ..., accept an appeal from Mr Khaymin, and subsequently fix an appeal hearing.” 41.  Two days later the Regional Court received an application from the applicant's lawyer seeking an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 1 July 2002. According to the Government, there was no indication in the case file that the request had been examined. 42.  On 1 October 2002 the District Court extended the applicant's detention for three months, that is, until 1 January 2003. The court gave the same grounds for the extension as those in the detention orders of 27 May and 1 July 2002. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing. 43.  On 13 November 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 1 October 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination by the District Court. The Regional Court reasoned that in breach of the rules of criminal procedure the District Court had not ensured the presence of the applicant and his lawyer at the hearing of 1 October 2002. It held that the applicant's detention “should remain unchanged” in the meantime, because it had not established any ground to release him. The applicant was not taken to the appeal hearing, even though he had sought leave to appear. His lawyer attended that hearing. 44.  On 20 November 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court listed a hearing for 17 December 2002 and extended the applicant's detention, without citing any grounds or setting a time-limit. The applicant and his lawyer were not called to the hearing. 45.  On 7 March 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 20 November 2002 because no procedural or substantive violations were established. 46.  On 15 December 2002 the District Court re-examined the detention matter (which it had previously examined on 1 October 2002) and retrospectively extended the applicant's detention for three months, until 1 January 2003. It held that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that, if released, he could pervert the course of justice. A new lawyer, Mr Tselousov, and the applicant attended the hearing. 47.  The applicant and Mr Khaymin, his other lawyer, appealed against that decision. The applicant also sought leave to appear before the appeal court. 48.  According to the Government, the District Court fixed six trial hearings between 17 and 24 December 2002. They were adjourned because the applicant's lawyer defaulted. 49.  On 8 January 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court examined the grounds of the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 December 2002 and upheld the decision. According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was called to the appeal hearing. According to the Government, the applicant's lawyer was given notice of the appeal hearing but defaulted and failed to notify the Regional Court about the reasons for his absence. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the notice addressed to a prosecutor and to the applicant's lawyer. The notice did not bear the signature of any court official. 50.  On 15 December 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should pay RUR 258 (less than EUR 10) in legal fees. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that order. 51.  On 25 December 2002 the District Court dismissed requests by the applicant and his co-defendant for the removal of the prosecutor, the presiding judge and one of the applicant's lawyers, Mr Simkin. The applicant has alleged that he did not receive that decision and, therefore, could not appeal against it. 52.  On 25 December 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention to 1 April 2003. It held that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences, the victims and witnesses had not yet been questioned and, therefore, that the detention should be extended. The applicant and his lawyer, Mr Khaymin, attended the hearing. 53.  From 13 January to 7 February 2003 the District Court fixed five hearings which were adjourned owing to the absence of the applicant's lawyer. On 18 February 2003, upon the applicant's request, he was assigned new counsel. The proceedings were stayed until 13 March 2003 to allow the new lawyer to study the case file. 54.  On 7 March 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court disallowed appeals by the applicant and his lawyer against the extension order of 25 December 2002 because they had missed the time-limit. It asked the District Court to determine whether the time-limit could be extended. According to the applicant, the District Court did not take any actions following that decision of the Regional Court. The Government did not comment on this. 55.  On 26 March 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention to 1 July 2003. The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record, that he had a permanent place of residence and work, that he was the breadwinner for two minor children and that he suffered from several illnesses. On the other hand, he was charged with serious criminal offences, victims and witnesses had not yet been heard, and the case had been pending for a long time, owing mostly to the applicant's conduct. The applicant, if released, could therefore obstruct the proceedings. 56.  According to the applicant, on 3 April 2003 he and his lawyer lodged an appeal against that decision. The appeal was never examined. 57.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant sought the removal of the entire bench and the prosecutor. The court dismissed those requests. 58.  On 26 June 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court ruled out certain evidence as inadmissible. In the same decision the trial court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the manslaughter charges because the statutory limitation period had expired, and extended the applicant's detention to 1 October 2003. The court noted that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that the trial was pending. 59.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the decision of 26 June 2003 but subsequently withdrew their appeals. 60.  On 10 July 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the charges of unlawful confinement because the conduct in question could not be characterised as a criminal offence. 61.  On the same day the District Court found the applicant guilty of causing bodily injuries and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. The applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town pending the appeal proceedings. 62.  On 15 July and 12 August 2003 the applicant lodged appeals against the conviction. On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer appealed against the judgment of 10 July 2003. 63.  On 24 February 2004 the applicant and his lawyer withdrew their appeals. 64.  On 3 March 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court accepted the withdrawal and discontinued the appeal proceedings. On the same day the applicant's written undertaking not to leave the town was cancelled.