6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in Tver. 7.  On 18 July 2000 the investigating authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person. They suspected them of drug trafficking. On the same date the applicant was detained. 8.  On 21 July 2000 he was released. 9.  On 23 November 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were severed from the proceedings against the other accused. 10.  On 24 November 2000 a public prosecutor charged the applicant in absentia and ordered his arrest and detention. The applicant was charged with the purchase of 0.5263 grams of heroin on two occasions and its subsequent sale. 11.  On 27 November 2000 the applicant was put on a list of persons wanted by the police. 12.  On 14 April 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on the basis of the prosecutor’s order of 24 November 2000. The order to take him into custody was served on the applicant but he refused to countersign it. 13.  On 25 April 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with a court about his arrest on 14 April 2001. Although a letter of 28 May 2001 from the court confirmed that a judge had received the complaint, it appears that the complaint was not examined. 14.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother filed a complaint claiming that his detention was unlawful. 15.  On 6 May 2001 the prosecutor of the Moskovskiy District of Tver dismissed the complaint on the following grounds:
“The preventive measure was applied to [Mr] Fursenko on valid grounds. At present there are no reasons to change the preventive measure.” 16.  On 11 May 2001, 27 days after the arrest, the investigating authorities served the charges on the applicant and questioned him. 17.  Having finished the investigation, on 14 May 2001 the investigating authorities referred the bill of indictment to the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver for trial. 18.  On 23 May 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant to criminal proceedings against another accused and ordered that the preventive measure should remain unchanged. 19.  On 18 June 2001, in the course of the first court hearing, the applicant asked for leave to appoint his mother as a representative. The application was granted. 20.  In the hearing the applicant also asked for the case to be referred back for additional investigation, and for his release pending trial. He also complained of a number of procedural irregularities. The Moskovskiy District Court of Tver did not grant either of the applications. The court held, inter alia:
“In the course of the hearing [Mr] Fursenko applied for the case to be referred back for additional investigation, ... asked for the preventive measure to be modified and for an obligation not to leave his place of residence to be imposed instead of detention...
[Mr] Fursenko is charged with a particularly grave offence; ... the preventive measure is applied having regard to the personality of [Mr] Fursenko, who was previously convicted of a grave offence; no exceptional circumstances preventing [Mr] Fursenko from being isolated were presented to the court. ...
Breaches of the terms for questioning the accused committed at the preliminary investigation may not be accepted as a ground for altering the preventive measure in respect of [Mr] Fursenko, who is charged with a particularly grave offence.” 21.  The applicant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the preventive measure had been applied to him unlawfully, that he had not been notified about the institution of criminal proceedings against him, that he had never sought to evade the investigation and that he had been unlawfully put on the list of persons wanted by the police. 22.  On 19 July 2001 the Tver Regional Court upheld on appeal the ruling of 18 June 2001. The court ruled:
“The preventive measure in respect of [Mr] Fursenko has been applied in compliance with [the law], taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case... No circumstances preventing keeping him in custody can be found.” 23.  On 24 September 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver joined the proceedings against the applicant and another accused to criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning another offence. In the same ruling the court ordered the applicant to remain in detention. 24.  The applicant submitted that on unspecified dates between 13 July and 21 November 2001 he had complained that his continuing detention was not justified because no hearings had been held during this period. However, the complaints were not examined by the courts. 25.  On 24 December 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver, acting pursuant to Article 232 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, referred the case back for additional investigation in order to reformulate the charges and ordered the applicant to remain in detention. The court did not give reasons for its decision on this matter. At the same hearing the applicant challenged the judge. The challenge was dismissed. 26.  The Government submitted that subsequently a prosecutor authorised the applicant’s continued detention. 27.  On 2 January 2002 the applicant filed a complaint against the decision of 24 December 2001. He claimed that the preventive measure had been applied to him in breach of procedural law. 28.  On 14 February 2002 the Tver Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court held:
“[The accused] are charged with a particularly grave offence. During the preliminary investigation the preventive measure... was applied to them ... on valid grounds. ... [The court] ... resolved the question concerning the preventive measure in accordance with [the law]. There are no grounds to change the preventive measure... for [the accused].” 29.  On 18 February 2002 the case was in fact referred to the investigative authorities for additional investigation. 30.  On 26 February 2002 the prosecutor extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 26 March 2002. 31.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother complained to the prosecutor about the applicant’s detention. 32.  In his reply of 13 March 2002 the prosecutor stated:
“...On 14 April 2001 the investigation of the criminal case was renewed because of the arrest of [Mr] Fursenko. In breach of [the law], the charges were served on [Mr] Fursenko only on 14 May 2001.
... The said breach of the law is not an unconditional ground for release...” 33.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant’s mother complained to the court about the failure to examine the applicant’s complaints about his detention. 34.  In its reply of 25 March 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver stated:
“The complaint concerning the lawfulness of [Mr] Fursenko’s arrest was received by the court on 28 April 2001. On 3 May 2001 the court requested [the investigating authorities] to provide [relevant] documents. Since the documents were not received, a second request was made on 22 May 2001... Since on 28 May 2001 the case was submitted to the court for consideration on the merits, the complaint was transmitted to the judge... When this issue was decided ... detention as a preventive measure remained unchanged.
After the case had been referred back for additional investigation, [Mr] Fursenko again filed a complaint concerning the preventive measure. The court received the complaint on 27 February 2002, on 5 March 2002 necessary documents were requested and they were received on 13 March 2002. On 20 March 2002 the hearing concerning the complaint was adjourned because the accused requested the assistance of a lawyer.” 35.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant again lodged a complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of his detention and applied for release pending trial on the grounds, inter alia, that he had never sought to evade investigation. 36.  From 18 to 30 March 2002 the applicant went on hunger strike demanding that the authorities review the lawfulness of his arrest. 37.  On 26 March 2002 the case was submitted to the court for trial. On the same date the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver, acting pursuant to Articles 220-1 and 220-2 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning the unlawfulness of his detention and application for release pending trial, relying on the gravity of the offences with which he was charged. The court noted that on 26 February 2002 the prosecutor had extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 26 March 2002. It also ordered that “the preventive measure should remain unchanged”. The applicant appealed. 38.  On 4 June 2002 the Tver Regional Court quashed the ruling of 26 March 2002 and referred the issue of the applicant’s detention to another judge for a fresh examination. The court found that the applicant’s lawyer had not been notified about the hearing, which constituted a violation of the applicant’s defence rights, and instructed the lower court to take into consideration the applicant’s arguments. At the same time the court ordered the applicant to remain in detention on the ground that the ruling of 26 March 2002 had been quashed for procedural reasons. 39.  On 15 July 2002 the applicant again went on hunger strike until 6 August 2002, demanding that the authorities review the lawfulness of his detention. It appears that he amended his complaint, alleging, inter alia, that his detention between 14 April and 14 May 2001 and between 26 February and 25 March 2002 had been unlawful. 40.  On 26 July 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver, acting pursuant to Article 125 of the Russian Federation Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the applicant’s detention had been lawful:
“[Mr] Fursenko is charged with two offences ... for which only punishment in the form of deprivation of liberty is provided. The application of the preventive measure and the fixing of the terms of [Mr Fursenko’s] detention between 14 April and 14 May 2001 and between 26 February and 25 March 2002 complied with the provisions of the legislation on criminal procedure ... [I]nformation about the personality of the accused, previously convicted of a grave offence, and the nature of the offence he is charged with, was taken into consideration.
Therefore, the preventive measure ... was applied to [Mr] Fursenko lawfully and on valid grounds, as were the extension of [his] detention between 14 April and 14 May 2001 and between 26 February and 25 March 2002 by the prosecutor of the Moskovskiy District, who acted within his powers.
No exceptional circumstances pleading against placing [Mr] Fursenko in detention were submitted to the court.” 41.  The applicant appealed, insisting that his detention was unlawful. 42.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother complained to the court about the failure to examine the applicant’s complaint about his detention. 43.  In its reply of 31 July 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver stated:
“...[T]he complaint was examined on 26 July 2002. The length of the proceedings concerning the complaint was due to circumstances beyond the control of the court: after the documents were received from the Tver Regional Court on 13 June 2002, on 18 June 2002 a request for documents was sent [to the investigating authorities]... On 26 June 2002 the hearing was adjourned following [Mr] Fursenko’s request for further documents; on 28 June 2002 this request was sent to the investigative authorities. Despite our numerous reminders and demands by the judge for immediate compliance with that request, the response was received by the court only on 19 July 2002.” 44.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked for leave to study the file. On 29 August 2002 the Tver Regional Court granted the application and returned the case file to the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver. The applicant later applied for the hearing to be held in his presence. On 19 September 2002 the Tver Regional Court granted the application and scheduled the next hearing for 8 October 2002. 45.  On 8 October 2002 the Tver Regional Court quashed the ruling of 26 July 2002 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination by a different bench. The court held:
“[The Moskovskiy District Court of Tver] dismissed [Mr] Fursenko’s complaint, referring to [the gravity of the charges against him]... It also took into consideration the information about the personality of the accused, i.e. his previous conviction for a grave offence. Therefore, the court only addressed the grounds for application of the preventive measure to [Mr] Fursenko.
However, in accordance with the provisions of Article 220-2 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure a court has to assess the lawfulness and reasonableness of decisions concerning detention as a preventive measure taken by the investigating authorities. Lawfulness of an arrest means compliance with all [relevant] provisions of the legislation on criminal procedure.
In his complaint the applicant indicated breaches of the law committed in procedural documents concerning the application of detention as a preventive measure. However, the court did not give any reasons as to why it did not accept the applicant’s arguments. In the court’s decision there is no analysis and assessment of the lawfulness of the application of detention as a preventive measure in respect of [Mr] Fursenko...
Accordingly, the court’s decision should be set aside as unlawful, and the case referred back for a fresh ... examination, [in which] the court should ... examine the circumstances of the case, address [Mr] Fursenko’s arguments and decide strictly in accordance with the law the issue of the lawfulness and reasonableness of [Mr Fursenko’s detention] and duly reason its decision. The criminal case against [Mr] Fursenko has been referred to the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver for consideration on the merits...” 46.  On 31 October 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver discontinued the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. It held that it was no longer competent to deal with the complaints lodged during the pre-trial proceedings since the preliminary investigation had been completed and on 5 August 2002 the applicant’s case had been sent for trial. The applicant appealed. 47.   On 26 November 2002 the Tver Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 31 October 2002. The court held:
“[Mr] Fursenko complained about the decision of the investigative authorities to apply detention as a preventive measure in respect of him during the pre-trial proceedings. However, as follows from the material submitted to the appeal court, [the applicant’s criminal case] is now before the Moskovskiy District Court and ... the court has decided to leave the preventive measure in respect of [Mr] Fursenko unchanged.
In these circumstances the judge had grounds to discontinue the proceedings concerning [Mr] Fursenko’s complaint..., because after the referral of the case together with the bill of indictment to the [trial] court, it is the [latter] that... reviews procedural decisions and other material relating to the pre-trial proceedings. At the same time the [trial] court reviews the decisions of the investigative authorities relating to limitations of citizens’ rights and freedoms upon complaints lodged by the interested parties.” 48.  On 2 April 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver referred the case back for additional investigation on the ground that the applicant and his co-accused had not been familiarised with the material in the case file. The court ordered the applicant to remain in detention; however, it did not state reasons for its decision on this point. 49.  The applicant lodged a complaint against the decision. 50.  On 25 June 2002 the Tver Regional Court amended the wording of the ruling of 2 April 2002 in the part relating to the referral of the case for additional investigation and upheld it in the remaining part. The court held:
“... [The accused] are charged with a particularly grave offence. The preventive measure... was applied to them at the stage of the preliminary investigation and remained unchanged when the case was referred back for additional investigation... in accordance with [the law].” 51.  The Government submitted that on 8 July 2002 the prosecutor had accepted the case file for further investigation. 52.  On 12 July 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver extended the applicant’s detention until 6 August 2002. The court noted:
“...The investigator applied for extension of the detention in respect of both accused until 8 August 2002, taking into account the fact that [the accused] are charged with a particularly grave offence... might seek to evade the investigation and trial and interfere with the establishment of the truth”. 53.  The court further held:
“... [The accused] are charged with an offence categorised as particularly grave and dangerous, only deprivation of liberty is provided as a punishment for this offence, the application [by the investigator for extension of the detention] set out reasons for extending the detention, and the information about the personalities of the accused has been taken into consideration.” 54.  On 29 October 2002 the Tver Regional Court quashed the ruling of 12 July 2002 on the grounds that it was poorly reasoned. At the same time the court held:
“Since the criminal case against [the applicant] has been referred to the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver to be considered on the merits and since in accordance with [the law], when a criminal case is submitted to a court it has to make a decision concerning the preventive measure – that is, whether it has to be changed – the present proceedings should be terminated.” 55.  The applicant’s mother lodged complaints with the court concerning the applicant’s detention and, inter alia, the decision of 29 October 2002. The complaints were dismissed on 5 and 28 December 2002. 56.  On 5 August 2002 the applicant’s case had been sent for trial. 57.  On 8 August 2002, at the directions hearing, the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver ordered the applicant to remain in custody. 58.  On 4 December 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver set the applicant’s case down for hearing from 26 to 30 December 2002 and ordered him to remain in detention. The applicant appealed against the decision in the part relating to the appointment of the hearing. 59.  On 30 January 2003 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 5 May 2003 on the ground of the gravity of the offence he was charged with. 60.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the remand prison, claiming that his detention was unlawful. 61.  On 25 November 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver dismissed the appeal. The court held:
“By [the investigator]’s order of 24 November 2000 detention as a preventive measure was applied to [Mr] Fursenko, that order being served on [Mr] Fursenko on 14 April 2001. ... [Mr] Fursenko is accused of [criminal] offences...
Since no decisions to change the preventive measure in respect of [Mr] Fursenko have been taken by a competent agency, there were no grounds to release him.” 62.  On 13 February 2003 the Tver Regional Court upheld the judgment. 63.  On 14 February 2003 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver acquitted the applicant, who was released on the same day. 64.  On 19 June 2003 the Tver Regional Court quashed the acquittal on appeal and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination by a different bench. 65.  On 5 September 2003 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver scheduled the hearing in the applicant’s case for 8 to 13 October 2003 and imposed on him an undertaking not to leave his place of residence without permission as a preventive measure.