7.  On 20 January 1995 the applicant, who was 21 years old at the time, was charged with armed robbery and assault causing heavy injuries on one person and the death of another. 8.  The charges, as modified later, concerned a number of robberies allegedly committed by an organised armed group who posed as traffic policemen and robbed motor vehicles and their passengers. The applicant had allegedly joined the group for its last two robberies. He was accused of being the one who had made the fatal gunshot killing the victim in one of those robberies. 9.  The preliminary investigation was completed in August 1995 and in October 1995 an indictment was submitted to the Regional Court of Veliko Tarnovo against twelve persons, including the applicant. 10.  The Regional Court held hearings on 11 December 1995, 3‑10 January, 3-5 June and 2-12 September 1996. Numerous witnesses were heard and other evidence admitted. 11.  On 12 September 1996 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. Ten other accused persons were also convicted in the same proceedings. 12.  On 16 September 1996 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. 13.  The Supreme Court held hearings on 14 February, 25 April and 27 June 1997. 14.  In 1997 the judicial system in Bulgaria was reformed. As a result, the applicant’s case fell within the jurisdiction of the newly created appellate courts. On 1 April 1998 it was assigned to the Veliko Tarnovo Appellate Court and the file transmitted to that newly created court. 15.  The Appellate Court held hearings on 11 January and 8 February 1999. 16.  On 9 February 1999 the court set aside the Regional Court’s judgment noting that two of the accused persons had been represented at the preliminary investigation stage by the same lawyer despite an obvious conflict of interest. In the court’s view, that fact vitiated the whole procedure and warranted remitting the case to the investigation stage. 17.  On 5 August 1999 an investigator reformulated the charges against the applicant. 18.  On 23 September 1999 a fresh indictment was submitted to the Regional Court. 19.  On 5 January 2000 the Regional Court remitted the case to the investigation stage. 20.  On 2 May 2000 a third indictment was drawn up and submitted to the Veliko Tarnovo Regional Court. As all but one of the judges at that court had been involved in the examination of the case or had decided on the accused persons’ applications for bail, in June 2000 the case was assigned to another court, the Lovech Regional Court. 21.  A substitute judge and substitute jurors were designated and took part in the proceedings before the Lovech Regional Court. 22.  The court held a hearing on 11 December 2000. It ordered a medical report and adjourned the examination of the case. 23.  Between December 2000 and November 2005 the Lovech Regional Court fixed thirty-two dates for hearings: 12 February, 9 April, 10 September and 29 November 2001, 21 February, 15 April, 14 June, 1 October, 1 November and 11 November 2002, 14 January, 31 January, 14 March, 28 March, 20 May, 26 September and 18 December 2003, 20 February, 5 March, 30 April, 14 May, 28 May, 2 July, 15 July, 1 October, 29 October and 3 December 2004, 25 February, 18 March, 29 April, 30 May and 9 September 2005. 24.  On each of those dates approximately fifteen to twenty-five of the persons summoned appeared before the Lovech Regional Court, including most accused persons and their lawyers. The applicant, who was in pre-trial detention until 31 July 2001 and at liberty thereafter (see paragraphs 24-49 below), and his lawyer were always present. However, on each of the thirty‑two dates at least one of the accused persons or their lawyers did not appear and the Lovech Regional Court, considering that that was a bar to proceeding with the examination of the case, adjourned the hearing. 25.  In most cases the persons who had not appeared had presented medical certificates indicating that they had fallen ill. In some cases one or more of the defence lawyers were unable to attend as they had been summoned in other proceedings. Several other adjournments were the result of unexplained absences of lawyers. 26.  The Lovech Regional Court’s approach during those five years consisted in noting the absences, adjourning the hearing and, where relevant, issuing orders to the lawyers concerned to explain the reasons for their absence and informing the local Bar about their failure to appear. On one occasion the court also appointed a medical expert to examine one of the accused persons who had been repeatedly absent on health grounds. No fines were imposed on lawyers who had failed to appear. It appears that the local Bar never sanctioned any of the lawyers. The possibility of separating the proceedings concerning some of the co-accused persons was not envisaged. 27.  As of November 2005 the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending at the trial stage without any progress being made within the last five years. 28.  In the meantime, in June 2003 two of the accused persons who had been released on bail in 2001 were arrested on charges that they had committed an armed robbery in January 2003 using the same method of operation as that employed in respect of the 1994-95 robberies. 29.  The applicant was detained pending trial on 20 January 1995. 30.  On 12 September 1996 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. On 9 February 1999 the Appellate Court set aside his conviction and sentence and remitted the case to the investigation stage. The applicant remained in pre-trial detention. 31.  Between February 1999 and his release in 2001 the applicant submitted a number of appeals against detention. 32.  His appeal of 14 June 1999 was dismissed on 13 July 1999 by the Regional Court which noted that the applicant had been charged with very serious crimes, that the authorities had been working on the case actively and that the case was complex as it concerned several accused persons, a number of criminal acts and victims who were foreigners. Therefore, the reasonable time requirement had not been breached. As to the applicant’s contention that the detention had become unjustified, there being allegedly no proof of any danger of his absconding or committing an offence, that argument was flawed, since under Article 152 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s practice the relevant issue was whether there was proof of absence of any danger of the accused person’s absconding or committing an offence if released. No such proof existed in the applicant’s case. 33.  On 25 August 1999 the Regional Court dismissed another appeal by the applicant against his detention. 34.  In his renewed appeal of 11 January 2000 the applicant relied, inter alia, on the new provisions on pre-trial detention, as in force since 1 January 2000. Under those provisions detention was only justified if there was proof of a danger that the accused person might abscond or commit offences. 35.  The appeal was examined by the Regional Court at a hearing on 20 January 2000. According to the applicant, the prosecutor was sitting next to the judges. 36.  On 20 January 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It found that the new provisions in force since 1 January 2000 did not require proof of a danger that the accused person would abscond or commit an offence. The fact that the applicant was charged with a serious offence was sufficient justification. 37.  On 24 January 2000 the applicant appealed to the Appellate Court against the Regional Court’s decision of 20 January 2000. 38.  The appeal was examined by the Appellate Court at a hearing on 27 January 2000. At the start of the hearing the applicant’s lawyer requested that the prosecutor should not be allowed to sit next to the judges and thus overhear remarks exchanged between the judges and observe their reactions. Furthermore, it could not be excluded that the judges, knowing that the prosecutor was listening, might not feel free in their decisions. In any event, the sight of the prosecutor sitting with the judges inevitably influenced the general perception of the proceedings and, in particular, could raise doubts as to the court’s independence and the equality between the parties. 39.  The court rejected the lawyer’s objection, stating that the prosecutor’s physical place in the courtroom could not possibly affect the equality of the parties, which was a legal principle that was strictly observed. 40.  The lawyer then requested the judges’ withdrawal, stating that they had demonstrated partiality by accepting to sit together with the prosecutor. That motion was also rejected. 41.  On 27 January 2000 the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that under the relevant law as it stood until 1 January 2000 pre-trial detention had been mandatory in all cases concerning serious offences, save in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances existed in the applicant’s case: the charges concerned premeditated crimes committed by a group. Also, the nature of the offences and the manner in which they had been committed clearly pointed to a danger that the applicant might abscond or commit another offence if released. 42.  According to the applicant, on 28 March 2000 he filed another appeal against his detention, reiterating his earlier arguments. No details as to its examination have been provided. 43.  At the hearing on 11 December 2000 the applicant appealed against his detention. The Lovech Regional Court dismissed the appeal on the same day, stating that the case was very complex and that therefore the reasonable time requirement had not been breached. 44.  Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court’s decision was upheld on 28 December 2000 by the Veliko Tarnovo Appellate Court. The court stated, inter alia:
“In accordance with Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was worded at the time when the applicant was initially placed in pre-trial detention, the [relevant authority] is bound to impose pre-trial detention when the charges concerned a “serious offence” [within the meaning of the Penal Code], as in the applicant’s case. In such a case, as here, in accordance with Article 152 § 2 ... the real danger of the accused person’s absconding or committing an offence is presumed a priori. Therefore, the applicant’s complaint that it has not been established that there is a danger of him absconding or committing an offence is ill-founded.” 45.  At the hearing on 12 February 2001 the applicant again requested to be released. That was refused on the same day by the Lovech Regional Court on the grounds that there were no new circumstances warranting release. The applicant appealed. 46.  On 8 March 2001 the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It stated, inter alia, that the term “reasonable time” had to be interpreted with due regard to the particular circumstances of the case, that all adjournments had been inevitable and that the charges concerned offences that were particularly dangerous. The court also stated:
“The very fact that the [charges concern] the applicant’s participation in a criminal group which has committed numerous robberies on the road – [offences] punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment – implies a danger of the applicant’s absconding or committing an offence. The case file does not contain proof to the contrary and, therefore, the only lawful measure of judicial control for the [applicant] is remand in custody”. 47.  On 9 April 2001 the Lovech Regional Court decided to release the applicant on bail. No reasons were provided, except that by the same decision the court refused to release some of the other accused persons stating that the charges against them concerned a greater number of robberies. The amount of the recognisance was fixed at 4,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN). 48.  The applicant appealed, considering that amount as excessive. On 27 April 2001 the Appellate Court rejected the appeal, reasoning that when examining an appeal against measures to secure appearance in court the appellate courts’ power was limited to setting aside the particular measure and substituting it with a measure of another type; they had no jurisdiction to modify the amount of the recognisance fixed by the lower court. 49.  On 31 July 2001 the applicant paid the recognisance and was released.