5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Khimki in the Moscow region. 6.  Since 29 April 2005 the applicant has been the managing director of a limited liability construction company, Print Capital. 7.  In June 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated concerning the company’s unauthorised construction of apartment buildings in the Moscow Region. In November 2005 further criminal proceedings were opened concerning fraud related to the sale of flats in those buildings. The two sets of proceedings were subsequently joined. 8.  On 4 December 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. 9.  On 6 December 2005 the Meshchanskiy District Court in Moscow authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:
“In taking its decision on the [investigator’s] request, the court takes into account the parties’ arguments and the character of the suspect, Mr Segeda, in particular his good references, lack of criminal record, the fact that he has a dependent child, his state of health, and his Category 3 disability. At the same time, the court takes into account that the request was submitted and approved by the appropriate officials in accordance with criminal procedural law. The court also takes into account the gravity of the charges, that Mr Segeda is suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, [and that he] continues to exercise his responsibilities as managing director of Print Capital and enjoys powers of authority and decision-making and therefore, there are sufficient grounds to believe that if a preventive measure not involving custody were applied, Mr Segeda might abscond, reoffend, intimidate victims and witnesses and other participants ... destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. Furthermore, taking into account that at the present stage of the proceedings the court is not making its assessment of the evidence in the criminal case, it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure in respect of Mr Segeda not involving custody, such as [releasing him subject to] a written undertaking.” 10.  On 12 December 2005 the applicant was charged with fraud. 11.  In an appeal against the detention order, the applicant’s counsel submitted that there were insufficient grounds to place the applicant in detention. In particular, prior to his arrest the applicant had not interfered with the proceedings and Print Capital, headed by him, had provided the investigating authorities with all the necessary documents. The investigating authorities had not provided any evidence to support their assertion that the applicant was at risk of absconding. The court had not taken into account that the applicant had good references, a permanent place of residence, a job, a dependent child, or that he had been registered as Category 3 disabled. 12.  On 21 December 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 6 December 2005. 13.  On 26 January 2006 Khimki Town Court in the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 22 March 2006, holding as follows:
“The present request has been submitted and approved by the appropriate officials and in accordance with criminal procedural law. The court takes into account that Mr Segeda is charged with a serious offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, and therefore if released, he might abscond or obstruct the establishment of truth by destroying documents and other evidence. There are no grounds to cancel or change the preventive measure.” 14.  In an appeal against that detention order, the applicant’s counsel submitted that in taking its decision, the Town Court had not taken into account the applicant’s character, the state of his health or the specific circumstances of the case. In particular, there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant might obstruct the establishment of the truth by destroying evidence. In fact, he could no longer do that, because in December 2005 the investigating authorities had carried out a search of Print Capital’s premises, seizing all its financial and other documents; information on the company’s assets and bank accounts had been attached. The Town Court’s reference to the risk of the applicant absconding was not supported by relevant facts either. The applicant had always appeared when summoned by the investigating authorities and had no intention of absconding. He suffered from a heart disease and since his placement in detention his state of health had deteriorated. His poor health would not allow him to abscond or obstruct the proceedings. Lastly, the applicant had good references, a dependent child and elderly parents, and was ready to cooperate with the investigating authorities. 15.  On 21 February 2006 the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the detention order of 26 January 2006, finding it lawful and duly reasoned. 16.  On 15 March 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 May 2006, bringing its duration to five months and eighteen days. The Town Court held as follows:
“Segeda I.D. is charged with a serious offence and if released he might abscond and reoffend. If released, Segeda I.D. might put pressure on witnesses and destroy evidence.
At the same time, the court considers that the followings arguments [submitted by the investigating authorities] deserve attention: the need to obtain the results of comprehensive expert reports on [the company’s] financial and construction activities, a financial and accounting expert report and an expert opinion on technical documentation; the need to question shareholders and officials of the administration of the Khimki district, and the need to establish the exact amount of damage caused by the unlawful construction activity.
The above circumstances do not allow applying in respect of Segeda I.D. a more lenient preventive measure than custody. Therefore the court considers that the request submitted [by the investigating authorities] is duly reasoned, and decides to extend Segeda I.D.’s term of detention until 22 May 2006.” 17.  In an appeal against the detention order of 15 March 2006, the applicant’s counsel argued that, in breach of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention, the investigating authorities had not provided evidence in support of their allegations that the applicant posed the risks to which they referred. He pointed out that the pre-trial investigation was almost completed and there were therefore insufficient grounds to extend the applicant’s detention or to apply another preventive measure. 18.  On 3 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 March 2006, finding it lawful and duly reasoned. 19.  On 16 May 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 June 2006, thus bringing its total duration to six months and eighteen days. The Court held as follows:
“The request to extend Segeda I.D.’s term of detention beyond six months has been approved by the prosecutor of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation in accordance with criminal procedural law. Since the applicant occupies an important managerial position [in the construction company] he might obstruct the criminal proceedings, in particular, by destroying documents or other evidence.
The maximum period for which Mr Segeda may be detained has not yet expired.
In such circumstances, there are no grounds to change or cancel the preventive measure and therefore the request submitted by [the investigator] should be granted.” 20.  The applicant and his counsel appealed against that decision to the Regional Court and referred to the same arguments as in their appeals against the previous detention orders. In addition, they pointed out that a number of expert reports, which were initiated after the seizure of documents on the construction company’s premises, had been finalised and submitted to the applicant for his perusal. All the initial investigative measures involving the participation of the applicant had already been carried out and in the last five months there had been no other investigative measures. Furthermore, the pre-trial investigation had almost been completed. In such circumstances, the applicant could no longer interfere with the proceedings. On the contrary, if released, he could familiarise himself with the evidence in the case more quickly than in the remand prison, where he was held in conditions inappropriate for perusing several volumes of the case file. 21.  On 17 May 2006, the applicant was presented with a new version of the charges. This time he was charged with fraud and participation in a criminal organisation. 22.  On 25 May 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 16 May 2006. 23.  On 14 June 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 October 2006, thus bringing its total duration to ten months and eighteen days. The court held as follows:
“... taking into account that Segeda I.D. is charged with serious and particularly serious offences punishable by more than two years’ of imprisonment, if released, he might put pressure on witnesses who had submitted civil claims, and otherwise obstruct the criminal proceedings, and also taking into account that there is a need to carry out investigative measures aimed at finalising the pre-trial investigation and to comply with requirements of Articles 215-220 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure], the court decides that the investigating authorities’ request for extension of the term of detention should be granted.
The court sees no grounds to cancel or change the preventive measure to another type not involving deprivation of liberty.” 24.  In an appeal against that decision the applicant and his counsel again repeated their arguments that there were insufficient grounds for extending the applicant’s detention. In addition, they pointed out that the Town Court had not explained why it was impossible to apply another preventive measure. 25.  On 30 June 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 June 2006. 26.  On 13 October 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 December 2006, thus bringing its total duration to twelve months. The Town Court held as follows:
“Segeda I.D. is charged with serious and particularly serious offences and if released, he might abscond.
Furthermore, additional time is needed to present all the co-defendants with the final version of the charges, to question them, to inform all the participants of the criminal proceedings of the end of the investigation, to comply with the requirements of Article 217 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure], to draw up the bill of indictment and to present 100 volumes of the case file to the co-defendants and other participants of the criminal proceedings for their perusal.
The Court also takes into account that when the case is sent to the trial court and is prepared for the hearing, the trial court should allow additional time for taking necessary procedural decisions provided for by law and therefore the term of detention of Segeda I.D. should be extended.
The court saw no grounds to apply a more lenient preventive measure, as it was requested by the defence.” 27.  In an appeal against that detention order, the applicant and his counsel referred to the same arguments as in their appeal against the previous detention orders and asked for the applicant to be released. 28.  On 7 November 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 October 2006. 29.  On 29 November 2006 the Regional Court, which was now acting as the first-instance court (see paragraph 41 below), extended the applicant’s detention until 22 February 2007, thus bringing its total duration to fourteen months and eighteen days. Its reasoning was as follows:
“It follows from the evidence presented to the court that the criminal investigation is particularly complex, since it involves several episodes of criminal activity and the crimes in question were attributed to a group of individuals, so there is a need to allow additional time of two months and eighteen days to carry out certain investigative measures, and also to comply with the requirements of Articles 216-217 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure].
Taking into account that Segeda I.D. is charged with a number of serious and particularly serious criminal offences, and that according to the charges he had played an active role in the criminal group, the court comes to the conclusion that if released, the accused might abscond, obstruct the proceedings, put unlawful pressure on the victims and witnesses, or commit further criminal offences. Therefore, despite his good references and his state of health, the court sees no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to Segeda I.D. to another type not involving deprivation of liberty, and considers it necessary to extend his detention for another two months and eighteen days.” 30.  The applicant’s counsel appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) and submitted that the applicant was being detained mainly because of the gravity of the charges against him. This was in breach of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention. 31.  On 30 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the detention order of 29 November 2006 and remitted the case to the Regional Court for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court held, in particular, that according to the relevant provisions of domestic law, pre-trial detention could be extended beyond twelve months only in exceptional circumstances, whereas the Regional Court in its decision had not indicated any such circumstances to justify extending the applicant’s detention for a longer period. The Regional Court had not supported its reasoning regarding the alleged risk of the applicant absconding, interfering with the proceedings or reoffending by relevant facts, had not examined the applicant’s arguments concerning his poor health, and had not considered the possibility of changing the preventive measure. During the fresh examination the Regional Court should carefully examine all the circumstances of the case, information on the applicant’s character and his state of health, and take a reasoned and duly motivated decision. The Supreme Court further held that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant should remain the same. 32.  On 22 February 2007 and after a fresh examination of the case, the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 June 2007, bringing its total duration to eighteen months. The Regional Court held as follows:
“In accordance with the requirements of Article 109 § 3 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure] pre-trial detention may be extended beyond twelve months only in exceptional circumstances in respect of individuals charged with particularly serious criminal offences.
The investigating authorities had established that the defendants’ actions, including the actions of Mr Segeda ..., had been of a criminal nature and had been given legal qualification in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code in force.
The length of the investigation of the present case was found justified, and therefore the Deputy Prosecutor General of [the Russian Federation] extended the term of investigation to twenty-three months and twenty-eight days.
The volume of the case, which by now has reached 300 volumes, as well as the number of defendants (six people) are evidence not only of the complexity of the investigation of the case and the need to provide additional time for investigation, but also in the court’s view its importance, since 991 persons had been granted victim status in those proceedings ...
In such circumstances, in taking a decision on the extension of Mr Segeda’s pre-trial detention, the opinion of only seven co-investors could not be decisive. Moreover, those persons are challenging the decision to grant them victim status and it appears that they are relying on Mr Segeda continuing his activity in order to discharge his obligations in their respect ...
...
The fact that Mr Segeda suffers from a chronic illness, for which he has been treated both prior to and after his placement in detention, is not an obstacle for his continued detention. It follows from the certificate provided by the head of the hospital ... that the remand prison in which Mr Segeda is detained disposes of the medical equipment necessary to provide him with treatment ...
...
The Court also takes into account that the investigation of the case is at the stage where personal participation of Mr Segeda and his counsel is required for carrying out investigative measures such as presenting him with the amended version of the charges against him and, subsequently, complying with the requirements of Article 217 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure].
If Mr Segeda were released, the authorities would be deprived of the opportunity to take speedy decisions on his participation in the investigating activities, having regard to the state of his health, which he invoked when he earlier refused to take part in the investigating activities, and such a state of affairs would interfere with the proper conduct of the proceedings.
The court considers that the above circumstances, together with the fact that Mr Segeda is charged with active participation in a criminal organisation which is regarded as particularly dangerous for society, and resulted in damage caused to a large number of victims, should be regarded as exceptional circumstances.
...
Taking into account the above, the court concludes that during the investigation of the case it is impossible to apply another, more lenient preventive measure in respect of Mr Segeda ...” 33.  In an appeal against that decision, the applicant’s counsel asked the Supreme Court to release the applicant since there were no grounds to detain him any longer. 34.  On 17 April 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the detention order of 22 February 2007, finding that in its decision the Regional Court had not indicated and had thus not established the circumstances which made it impossible to apply another preventive measure in respect of the applicant. The Regional Court’s reasons justifying keeping the applicant in detention, namely the gravity of the charges, and the importance, large volume and complexity of the criminal case, were not as such regarded as grounds for preventing another preventive measure from being applied. On the same date the Supreme Court thus released the applicant subject to a written undertaking, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify his continued detention. 35.  The parties did not provide any information on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.