4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Vilnius. 5.  On 23 June 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted for possible embezzlement of the property of the Aurabankas commercial bank. 6.  On 5 January 1996 the bank filed a civil claim for the recovery of debt against the applicant. The claim was joined to be examined in the criminal proceedings. 7.  On 16 January 1997 the applicant was questioned as a witness in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. 8.  On 20 January 1997 the investigation authorities took a decision to seize the applicant’s bank accounts. On 4 February 1997 the authorities decided to seize the applicant’s apartment in Vilnius, and, on 5 February 1997, to seize his car. 9. On 17 December 1999 the applicant was again questioned as a witness in the context of the aforementioned criminal proceedings. 10.  On 31 March 2000 charges were brought against the applicant for fraud on a gross scale by obtaining money under forged agreements to exchange currency. On the same day the applicant was questioned as the accused and a remand measure – an obligation not to leave his place of residence – was imposed on him. 11.  On 1 December 2000 upon the approval of the bill of indictment the case was transferred for trial to the Vilnius City First District Court. In accordance with the rules of jurisdiction the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the Vilnius City Second District Court. By order of 12 December 2000 the court committed the applicant for trial. 12.  Between 22 January 2001 and 28 June 2002 the case was adjourned thirteen times in view of the failure of certain witnesses or the co-accused to appear at a hearing and/or as a result of the illness of certain participants. 13.  On an unspecified date the lawyer of J.P., one of the co-accused in the case, asked the court to order a medical examination to establish whether J.P. would be able to serve a prison sentence if convicted. On 28 June 2002 the Vilnius City Second District Court ordered a medical expert report for this purpose. 14.  On 12 September 2002 the officials of the Institute of Forensic Medicine informed the Vilnius City Second District Court that, due to an intensive workload and lack of expert staff, the report in the case would take more time. The trial court was informed that it was planned to complete the report by 21 October 2002. The court adjourned the hearing until 5 November 2002. 15.  Of the eighteen hearings between 5 November 2002 and 10 October 2003, three were adjourned because the applicant failed to appear (twice for medical reasons) while the other participants in the proceedings were present. The remaining hearings were adjourned in the absence of the other co-accused or their lawyers. 16.  On 10 October 2003 the Vilnius City Second District Court convicted the applicant of fraud. It was also established that the criminal responsibility for forgery had become time-barred. The applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. The court also granted the bank’s civil claim. 17.  On 12 February 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the judgment. 18.  On 15 July 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.