5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Narva. 6.  The applicant is an entrepreneur; he was also a member of the Narva City Council and chairman of its financial committee at the material time. 7.  On 27 October 2010 a criminal investigation was initiated into influence peddling in the municipalities of Ida-Viru County. 8.  On 12 July 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of prejudicing free competition, influence peddling, demanding bribes and money laundering. 9.  On 13 July 2011 he was presented with a statement outlining the suspicion and was questioned as a suspect. The suspicion was set out over eight pages and contained a detailed factual description and legal classification of the offences the applicant was suspected of having committed. For example, it included descriptions of a number of agreements concluded on specific dates in connection with public tenders and the persons involved in the unlawful practices were named and specific sums of money were mentioned. Furthermore, several persons in respect of whom the applicant had exerted his influence and from whom he had unlawfully demanded specific sums of money were named in it. However, no mention was made of the evidence on which the suspicion was based. 10.  Also on 13 July 2011, the prosecutor asked the Viru County Court to issue a detention order concerning the applicant. In the request, firstly, a summary of the suspicions against the applicant was set out. It was further submitted that the materials of the criminal case presented to the court (statements of witnesses and other suspects, copies of contracts, procurement documents, bank account statements, inspection reports and surveillance reports) provided grounds for the assertion that the applicant was very probably linked to the acts of which he was suspected. Furthermore, it was noted that, although the applicant had no prior convictions, he was suspected of the commission of crimes falling under four different Articles of the Penal Code (Karistusseadustik), committed over an extended period of time. The bringing of further charges against the applicant could not be excluded since there were hints of other similar episodes. The prosecutor noted that, considering the nature of the crimes the applicant was suspected of (including offences relating to a breach of the duty to maintain integrity), and having regard to his active and leading role in them, there was a reasonable suspicion that, if at liberty, he could compromise the ongoing investigation by tampering with the evidence or exerting pressure on witnesses or other suspects. In the course of the investigation several witnesses (including municipal officials) had repeatedly testified that the applicant had influenced them to take decisions in his favour by threatening them with trouble or loss of employment. There was further information and evidence indicating that the applicant was a wealthy and influential person who was capable of carrying out these threats and affecting processes in the city. It was also mentioned that several of the acts suggested ongoing corrupt behaviour on his part despite the detention of a number of his accomplices. The prosecutor considered that there was a real risk that, if at liberty, the applicant would contact other persons with a view to hindering the investigation and influence the municipal officials, entrepreneurs and other witnesses who had so far given statements against him and his accomplices. Exerting influence over witnesses or tampering with the evidence were potential offences. 11.  Before the hearing on 13 July 2011, the County Court judge examined the case file. The court then heard the prosecutor and the applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer. The lawyer requested access to the materials presented to the court; the prosecutor objected. The County Court decided not to grant the defence access to the materials in question since the law did not provide for such a possibility. The applicant argued, inter alia, that a news article concerning the criminal investigation had been published a month and a half earlier and he had had the opportunity to influence the persons involved but had not done so. Moreover, he had suspended his functions at the City Council. He expressed his surprise that statements had been made by persons whom he even did not know. The prosecutor noted, inter alia, that the court had been presented with surveillance reports according to which the applicant had been involved in considering the question of the dismissal of certain officials. Thus, he had had a real opportunity to influence the decisions of the municipal authorities. 12.  On 14 July 2011 the Viru County Court remanded the applicant in custody. It summarised the suspicions against him, referred to the materials in the case file, and concluded that there was sufficient evidence, such as documentary evidence, witness statements and surveillance materials, for a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. The court reiterated the prosecutor’s arguments as to the need for the applicant’s detention because otherwise he could damage the investigation (see paragraph 10 above). It considered that remanding the applicant in custody was necessary in order to prevent the commission of further crimes by him. 13.  The applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Tartu Court of Appeal. He contested, inter alia, the County Court’s reliance on evidence to which the applicant or his lawyer had had no access. He acknowledged that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik) did not allow the lawyer access to the whole criminal case file at that stage of the proceedings; however, he had only wished to gain access to the material on which the court had based its decision remanding the applicant in custody. He argued that otherwise no meaningful control could be exercised over the court ruling and this was contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further argued that Article 15 § 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention had been breached. 14.  On 17 August 2011 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order. In respect of the complaint about lack of access to the evidence, the Court of Appeal noted that, under Article 47 § 1 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, counsel had the right to examine the criminal file upon the completion of the pre-trial investigation. As the pre-trial investigation had still been going on, defence counsel had had no right to examine the criminal file. 15.  Although no appeal lay against the appeal court’s decision, the applicant’s lawyer nevertheless filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. He argued that Article 47 § 1 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable in the circumstances or, alternatively, that that provision was contrary to the Constitution – and should be declared invalid – in so far as it did not allow the defence to have access to the criminal file before the completion of the pre-trial investigation. By a letter of 21 September 2011 the Supreme Court returned the appeal because no appeal lay against the appeal court’s decision. 16.  In the meantime, on 22 July 2011 the applicant requested release on bail. On 5 September 2011, after a public hearing, the Viru County Court dismissed the request, finding that, if released, the applicant might continue to commit offences. It referred in this context to the applicant’s conduct so far – he was suspected of the commission of a number of different offences committed over several years, and it was possible that further charges would be brought against him. In the course of the preliminary investigation witnesses had made statements to the effect that the applicant had exerted influence over them. The information and evidence gathered indicated that the applicant might carry out his threats. There was information that he had continued with corrupt activities despite the detention of several accomplices. 17.  On 4 October 2011 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the County Court’s decision of 5 September 2011. It concurred with the lower court’s opinion and added that if the applicant was released on bail it could not be excluded that he would obstruct the establishment of the truth in the criminal case, regard being had to the nature of the suspicion, the number of persons involved and the fact that the preliminary investigation was still in its initial stages. On 21 November 2011 the Supreme Court decided not to examine the applicant’s appeal. 18.  In the meantime, on 12 September 2011 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Viru County Court to review the reasons for the applicant’s detention and to release him. A public hearing was held on 21 September 2011 with the participation of the applicant’s lawyer and the prosecutor. According to the record of the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer said that he was unable to understand how, without having access to the materials of the case, he could possibly counter the prosecutor’s argument that the circumstances had not changed and there was no ground to release the applicant. The record of the hearing does not, however, indicate that the lawyer explicitly requested access to the prosecution’s evidence. 19.  By a decision of 23 September 2011 the Viru County Court dismissed the request for the applicant’s release. It was noted in the decision that the court had come to this conclusion after hearing the parties and examining the materials of the criminal case. The court reiterated its position that, considering the circumstances of the offences allegedly committed by the applicant, as well as his active and leading role therein, there was a well-founded risk that the applicant, if at liberty, might tamper with evidence and exert pressure on witnesses and suspects. He was considered to have widespread close political and economic connections and the corresponding influence. Thus, the court considered that there were sound reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. No appeal lay against that decision. 20.  On 14 October 2011 the applicant requested that his detention be replaced by electronic surveillance as a preventive measure. After a public hearing on 17 November 2011, the Viru County Court dismissed the request on 23 November 2011. It held, inter alia, that the grounds for the applicant’s detention remained valid. Placement of the applicant under electronic surveillance would enable the applicant’s movements to be monitored but it would not be possible to observe whom he communicated with or who visited him. The applicant did not contest the court’s ruling. 21.  In the meantime, on 15 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyer again requested the Viru County Court to review the reasons for the applicant’s detention and to release him. A public hearing took place on 6 December 2011, with the participation of the applicant’s lawyer and the prosecutor. According to the record of the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer raised the issue that without access to the case-file materials it was impossible for him to challenge the prosecutor’s position. The prosecutor reiterated his arguments about the need to keep the applicant in custody in order to prevent him from exerting influence over the witnesses and the other accused. According to the prosecutor, the investigation was being conducted intensively and the case-file was voluminous. He handed over three volumes of case-file materials to the court but objected to the request of the defence to be given access to this evidence. The record of the hearing does not contain any information on the court’s decision in respect of the defence’s access request. 22.  On 12 December 2011 the Viru County Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. Having heard the parties and examined the materials of the criminal case, it found that the circumstances that had served as grounds for placing the applicant in detention had not ceased to exist. It again referred to the applicant’s role in the commission of the offences alleged and considered that, if at liberty, he might tamper with evidence and influence the other accused and witnesses. The court referred to the applicant’s widespread close political and economic connections and his corresponding influence. No appeal lay against the decision. 23.  On 11 January 2012 the applicant was released from custody and a prohibition on leaving his place of residence was applied to him as a preventive measure. 24.  The Government submitted that the criminal case in issue concerned seven suspects and the material collected during the whole period of the pre-trial investigation (from 27 October 2010 to 1 March 2012) ran to thirteen volumes totalling 3,188 pages. 25.  During the applicant’s detention another suspect was also arrested and all the suspects were questioned, some of them on several occasions. Further, twenty-one witnesses were interviewed, some of them more than once. The Government also provided a long list of inspection reports relating to various seized items, and documents drawn up during the period in question, as well as numerous enquiries made to various institutions. According to the summary of the pre-trial proceedings drawn up on 1 March 2012, there were seven suspects in the criminal case. The evidence included statements by fifty-three witnesses, ten inspection reports, fifteen replies to enquiries, and other documentary evidence, as well as twenty-six pieces of physical evidence and recordings. 26.  On 30 August 2012 a prosecutor drew up a statement of charges against five suspects, including the applicant. On 10 December 2012 the applicant was prosecuted together with four other accused. According to the latest information available to the Court the criminal case was still pending before the domestic courts.