5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Moscow. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant's detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him 7.  On 5 April 1999 the applicant, who was a police officer, was arrested and on 8 August 1999 he was charged with embezzlement and abuse of power. 8.  On 20 March 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was forwarded to the Cheryemushkinskiy District Court of Moscow (the District Court) for trial. On 5 May 2000 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor's office for additional investigation. 9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was again forwarded to the District Court for examination. On 18 November 2000 the District Court again returned the case for additional investigation. 10.  On an unspecified date in February-March 2001 the prosecutor's office again forwarded the criminal case for trial. On 3 April 2001 the District Court returned the case for additional investigation for the third time. 11.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant was released from detention subject to an undertaking not to abscond. 12.  On 7 June 2001 the criminal case against the applicant was once more forwarded to the District Court for examination. On an unspecified date between June 2001 and July 2004 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor's office for further investigation for the fourth time. 13.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the criminal case was again forwarded to the District Court for trial. On 22 September 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. The applicant was detained immediately. He appealed against the judgment to the Moscow City Court and requested to be released. 14.  On 1 December 2004 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The court upheld the applicant's detention on remand without providing an explanation. 15.  On 27 January 2005 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 1 December 2004 and sent the case for a fresh examination on appeal. 16.  On 3 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 22 September 2004. 17.  On 23 November 2005 the Supreme Court, acting by way of supervisory review on the applicant's request, quashed the decisions of 27 January and 3 March 2005 and upheld the decision of 1 December 2004. The Supreme Court further ordered the applicant's detention for three months, until 23 February 2006, “in order to secure the examination of the case”, without giving other grounds. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention on remand had been extended unlawfully and unreasonably (see paragraph 21 below). 18.  On 9 and 19 December 2005 the District Court scheduled the preliminary hearing of the applicant's case. On both occasions the court stated that “the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant should remain the same – detention on remand” and did not provide any time-limits for the detention. 19.  On 27 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for release, stating that the period of his detention ordered by the Supreme Court (see paragraph 17 above) had expired on 23 February 2006. 20.  On 28 February 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant's request and ordered his further detention until 23 May 2006, referring to the gravity of the charges against him. 21.  On 16 March 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal of 23 November 2005. 22.  On 6 and 26 April 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant's requests for release, referring to the gravity of the charges against him. 23.  On 11 May 2006 the District Court extended the applicant's detention on remand until 23 August 2006, referring to the gravity of the charges against him. 24.  On 27 June 2006 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. 25.  Between 5 April 1999 and 27 June 2006 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were adjourned on twenty-four occasions due to his and his counsel's absence from the hearings, which resulted in an overall delay in the proceedings of one year and three months.