4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived in Velikiy Novgorod. 5.  On 13 April 2011 the applicant was arrested for theft and remanded in custody. On 31 May 2011 he was additionally charged with more counts of theft and illegal possession of firearms. On 24 August 2011 a further 27 counts of theft were added to the charges against him. On 29 September 2011 the Valdayskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region found the applicant guilty as charged but the conviction was quashed by the Regional Court on 6 December 2011. 6.  The facts concerning the initial period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention are summarised in the table below.
 
Decisions
1st instance court 
2nd instance court
1st detention order 16.04.2011 Valdayskiy District Court (Novgorod Region)
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: no information.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed.
Other aspects: The court noted that there was sufficient evidence for opening a criminal case against the applicant.
2nd detention order 14.06.2011 Valdayskiy District Court (Novgorod Region)
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: no information.
Alternative preventive measures: not analysed.
Other aspects: The court noted that there was sufficient evidence for opening the criminal case against the applicant.
3rd detention order (trial stage) 06.12.2011 Novgorod Regional Court
 
n/a
Reasons
Risks: not specified.
Specific factual circumstances:
Conduct of the proceedings: The detention order was a part of the appeal judgment which quashed the first instance conviction judgment.
Alternative preventive measures: not mentioned.
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of the rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.
4th detention order 06.03.2012 Novgorod Regional Court
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Alternative preventive measures: not mentioned.
Conduct of the proceedings: no information.
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of the rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.
5th detention order 17.07.2012 Novgorod Regional Court
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Alternative preventive measures: not mentioned.
Conduct of the proceedings: no information.
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.
6th detention order 06.09.2012 Valdayskiy District Court (Novgorod Region)
No information
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Alternative preventive measures: not mentioned.
Conduct of the proceedings: no information.
Other aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of the rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.
7th detention order 25.12.2012 Novgorod Regional Court
Reasons
Risks:
Specific factual circumstances:
Alternative preventive measures: not mentioned.
Conduct of the proceedings: The court noted that a number of hearings had been postponed following the applicant’s requests for examination of additional witnesses, for conducting an expert examination and for referral of the case to the prosecution for additional investigation.
Other aspects: not specified. 7.  On 30 August 2013, when giving notice of the application to the Government, the Court invited the parties to check the statement of facts prepared by the Registry and to produce, if necessary, any missing detention orders. It also directed the parties as follows: “Where the applicant’s detention was extended after the date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court, the parties are invited to indicate the overall length of the detention on remand and reasons for extension.” 8.  On 11 September 2013 the Court forwarded to the Government a copy of the applicant’s letter by which he informed the Court of two further three-month extensions of the authorised detention period that had been granted by the Valdayskiy District Court on 6 March and 5 June 2013. The latter extension was upheld on appeal by the Novgorod Regional Court on 26 June 2013. 9.  On 1 November 2013 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration. They acknowledged that the applicant had been detained “during 1 year 5 months and 17 days ... without relevant and sufficient grounds” and in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay him a sum of 2,960 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction and invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. 10.  On 30 November 2013 the applicant replied that he had taken note of the Government’s acknowledgement of the violation and that the amount of compensation was acceptable to him. He pointed out however that further extensions of his detention had taken place after the communication of his application and that the global duration of his detention amounted to two years seven months and seventeen days. He enclosed a copy of the judgment by the Valdayskiy District Court of 7 August 2013, by which he was convicted and sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment. 11.  By letter of 25 March 2014, the Court invited the Government to amend the terms of their unilateral declaration to reflect the entire duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 12.  On 15 April 2014 the Government refused to amend the declaration. They submitted that the scope of the case should be determined by reference to the information that was available to the Court at the moment of communication and that any extension of the scope would only be possible upon a “formal indication” from the Court to that effect. The applicant had waited for four months before informing the Court about his conviction, even though he was aware that the case had been communicated to the parties. The Government asserted that the applicant had failed to show due diligence which could be reasonably expected from him.