5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a custodial sentence in the Ulyanovsk Region. 6.  On 19 April 2006 a criminal case was opened against the applicant. 7.  On 10 June 2006 the applicant was arrested and on the following day charged with several counts of large-scale fraud. 8.  On 12 June 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk remanded the applicant in custody, finding as follows:
“[The applicant] is accused of several serious crimes punishable by over two years’ imprisonment, which is by itself enough to remand [one] in custody. Moreover ... the court pays particular attention to the prosecution’s arguments that the applicant may reoffend (as demonstrated by the episode of defrauding a Ms L. after the opening of the criminal case) and abscond. The court views sceptically the [applicant’s] assertion that he is currently registering his residence [with the Ulyanovsk police], as the last registration has expired in 2005 and since then no decisions have been taken in that regard...” 9.  The applicant appealed. On 22 June 2006 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court found that the detention order had been lawful and reasoned, and dismissed the appeal. 10.  On 7 August 2006 the Leninskiy District Court, stating that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still pertained, extended it until 19 October 2006. 11.  On 17 October 2006 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 November 2006, holding, in particular:
“... the preliminary investigation in the present criminal case is not over, it is necessary to carry out many investigative actions ...
Mr Kovalenko is accused of several serious crimes punishable by over two years’ imprisonment, which is by itself enough to remand [one] in custody. Thus, there exists a particular risk that he may flee from justice and interfere with the establishment of the truth.
Taking into account the concrete circumstances of the imputed crimes, the information about the [applicant’s] personality, in particular, his age, his state of health ... the court concludes that there are no grounds to apply to him a more lenient preventive measure.” 12.  On 16 November 2006 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 December 2006. It specifically noted:
“... it is necessary to carry out investigative actions... aimed at locating the significant funds acquired [by the applicant through criminal activities] from the investors and the [applicant’s] property.” 13.  On 8 December, 29 December 2006 and 6 February, 6 March and 5 April 2007 the Leninskiy District Court, with reference to the same grounds, further extended the applicant’s detention. 14.  On 4 June 2007 Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 August 2007, finding as follows:
“... if at liberty, the applicant may reoffend and flee from justice. According to police reports, Mr Kovalenko has never appeared at his registered residence in Zhdanovo in the Moscow Region, and the house situated at that address is dilapidated. As to his temporary residence in Ulyanovsk, he appears there only seldom.” 15.  On 2 August and 6 December 2007 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court granted further requests on the part of the prosecution and extended the applicant’s detention. It listed the same grounds justifying the custodial measure. 16.  On 21 February 2008 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2008, noting:
“... The assertions of the defence that Mr Kovalenko will not flee from justice, as he has ... three children and an aged mother, are unconvincing. It follows from the case file that he is divorced and lives separate from his family ...” 17.  On 16 June 2008 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court considered that in order to comply with certain procedural formalities and taking into account that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still pertained, the detention should be extended until 19 August 2008. 18.  The appeals against the above decisions were examined by the Supreme Court of Russia on 31 January, 2 April and 12 August 2008. The Supreme Court held, in a summary fashion, that all the extension orders had been lawful, reasoned and that the first-instance court had had due regard to the applicant’s personal situation. 19.  Meanwhile, on 29 October 2007 the applicant was served with the final bill of indictment. It referred to more than 750 counts of large-scale fraud and other crimes committed in various regions of Russia, listing 765 victims, 797 witnesses and more than 800 expert examinations. The same day the applicant and his lawyers began studying the case-file. 20.  On 15 August 2008 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 October 2008. 21.  On 10 October 2008 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 12 November 2008. It referred, in particular, to the following:
“The prosecution submits ... that the [applicant’s] temporary residence registration in Ulyanovsk expired on 21 December 2005 ([as corroborated by] a certificate from the local police), Mr Kovalenko has only seldom appeared at that address ([as corroborated by] Mr S.’s statement), he was rather registered in Zhdanovo in the Moscow Region ([as corroborated by] a stamp in Mr Kovalenko’s passport), in a dilapidated building ([as corroborated by] a certificate from the municipal service provider), which is unfit for living, since its roof leaks and it does not have doors or windows ([as corroborated by] Mr O.’s statement), and is used only to [illegally] register persons who come to Moscow ([as corroborated by] Mr B.’s statement).
... the court finds the arguments of the prosecution that, if at liberty, the applicant may flee from justice to be convincing.” 22.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant and his representatives finished studying the case file. 23.  On 11 November 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk ordered a preliminary hearing of the case, rejected the applicant’s request for release and authorised his further detention. It stated that none of the grounds for keeping the applicant in custody had disappeared. Appeals against the decisions of 15 August and 11 November 2008 were dismissed. 24.  On 17 November 2008 the Leninskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing. It examined a number of procedural issues and, referring to the gravity of the charges and the danger of his absconding or obstructing the course of the investigation, extended the applicant’s detention. No appeal was lodged against this decision. 25.  On 26 November 2008 the trial commenced. 26.  On 24 April and 10 June 2009 the Leninskiy District Court granted further extensions of the custodial measure for the purpose of finishing the examination of the case. It noted that the grounds for keeping the applicant in custody pertained. The applicant’s appeals against both decisions were subsequently rejected by the Regional Court. 27.  On 6 July 2009 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of large-scale fraud and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 28.  On 28 October 2009 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court made minor amendments to the judgment, upholding it on appeal.