5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Osijek. 6.  On 21 March 2011 an investigating judge from the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant, four other persons, T.O., O.K., T.K. and N.Š., and two companies, K. and O., in connection with suspected abuse of power and authority, fraud, false accounting and business misfeasance. 7.  On the same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds of the risk that he might tamper with evidence and of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 §§ 1(2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The judge held that it was necessary to question several witnesses who could be influenced by the applicant and the other defendants, and that the pecuniary gain allegedly obtained suggested that the circumstances of the offences were particularly serious. 8.  On 22 March 2011 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. 9.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with the Vukovar County Court. On 31 March 2011 a three-judge panel of the court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded. 10.  In the period between 22 March and 4 April 2011 the investigating judge questioned the defendants and heard evidence from eight witnesses. 11.  On 21 April 2011 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), reiterating his previous arguments. 12.  An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court on 28 April 2011. 13.  In May 2011 the investigating judge heard evidence from three witnesses and additionally questioned defendants T.K. and N.Š. 14.  On 20 June 2011 the investigating judge again extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 15.  The applicant appealed and on 30 June 2011 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded. 16.  In July 2011 the investigating judge again questioned defendants T.O. and O.K., and in September 2011 commissioned an auditor’s report. 17.  On 19 September 2011 the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru) indicted the applicant in the Vukovar County Court on charges of abuse of power and authority. 18.  On 21 September 2011 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The relevant part of the decision reads:
"As regards the second accused, Igor Orban, his detention was extended under [Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure] since he was working with the first accused. He was authorised to sign contracts, which he did by signing a contract on cooperation with company Ž., from Osijek, on 25 February and 31 July 2008. Furthermore, the second accused transported the goods he received to company K. without any accompanying documentation, which resulted in a financial loss to company Ž. of 6,258,895.02 kunas. In view of the extent of the damage, [this panel] finds that the detention should be extended under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 19.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining that there had been no reason to extend his detention. 20.  On 12 October 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, noting the following:
"The manner in which the offences of which the accused [T.O., Igor Orban and O.K.] are suspected were committed, as well as the period at issue, suggest a particularly high level of organisation, and the pecuniary gain (36,606,101.28 kunas and 6,258,895.02 kunas) ... significantly surpasses the elements that constitute the offences under Article 337 § 4 of the Criminal Code ... and also shows that the circumstances of the offence were particularly serious." 21.  On 7 December 2011 the applicant requested the Vukovar County Court to be released from detention but his request was denied. He lodged an appeal against that decision, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 January 2012. 22.  On 13 December 2012 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), reiterating its previous arguments. 23.  The applicant appealed against the above decision and on 4 January 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded. 24.  In the period between 19 January and 3 February 2012 two hearings were adjourned as a result of the health problems of one of the accused, N.Š., and one of the companies’ representatives. 25.  At a hearing on 2 March 2012 before the Vukovar County Court the applicant pleaded not guilty. He argued that from the very beginning of the proceedings his detention had been constantly extended on the same grounds, which was contrary to the Court’s case-law. He therefore requested to be released. 26.  The trial panel of the Vukovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release and adjourned the hearing until 29 March 2012. 27.  At a hearing on 29 March 2012 the Vukovar County Court heard evidence from fourteen witnesses. 28.  A further hearing was held on 11 April 2012 when the Vukovar County Court questioned two witnesses. The applicant again requested to be released, arguing that the evidence adduced during the trial suggested that the alleged pecuniary gain remained unclear, which meant that the only reason adduced for his detention throughout the proceedings no longer existed. 29.  The trial panel of the Vukovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release and adjourned the hearing. 30.  Two hearings scheduled for 27 April and 31 May 2012 were adjourned because the accused, N.Š., had had a heart attack. 31.  In the meantime, on 22 May 2012, a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The manner in which the offences of which the accused are suspected were committed, as well as the period at issue, suggest a particularly high level of organisation. In addition, the pecuniary gain (36,606,101.28 kunas and 6,258,895.02 kunas) ... significantly surpasses the elements that constitute the offences under Article 337 § 4 in conjunction with §§ 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code ... and also show that the circumstances of the offence were particularly serious, which justifies detention under Article 102 § 2(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ” 32.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the Vukovar County Court’s decision. On 13 June 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court. It also held that the Vukovar County Court had conducted the proceedings with the necessary diligence. 33.  A further hearing scheduled for 26 June 2012 was postponed because the accused, N.Š., was unable to attend. 34.  On 16 July 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), arguing that his pre-trial detention was excessive and was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. 35.  On 18 July 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the lower courts had given sufficient reasons justifying the applicant’s continued detention and that the Vukovar County Court had displayed the required diligence in conducting the proceedings. 36.  On 28 August 2012 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 37.  The Vukovar County Court held two hearings on 4 September and 17 October 2012 in which it heard evidence from five witnesses and examined an auditor’s report. 38.  At a hearing on 9 November 2012 the applicant requested to be released. 39.  On the same day, the trial panel of the Vukovar County Court released the applicant from detention. It held that his detention was no longer proportionate to the sentence which he risked incurring and that any further detention could effectively mean that he was serving a prison sentence without a final judgment. 40.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.