4.  The applicant is a businessman. At the relevant time he, inter alia, owned and operated a flour‑mill. The criminal proceedings against him related to his business activities. 5.  On 13 September 1995 the prosecution authorities opened an investigation against the applicant for having provided banking services (collecting money deposits) without the requisite licence, contrary to Article 252 § 1 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (“the CC”). On 9 October 1995 the applicant was charged with the above offence and bailed. 6.  On 15 December 1997 the charges were amended and the applicant was accused of having committed the above offence in concert with others. 7.  On 20 December 1997 the investigator finished his work on the case and sent the file to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office with a recommendation to bring the applicant to trial. 8.  In the beginning of 1998 a prosecutor of the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office took over the case and on 25 February 1998 sent it back for further investigation. 9.  After that the case file was transferred several times on undisclosed grounds as follows: on 22 December 1998 to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, on 4 January 1999 to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, on 4 February 1999 to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office and on 16 April 1999 to the Pleven Investigation Service. 10.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant complained to the Pleven Appellate Prosecutor’s Office about the excessive length of the proceedings. The complaint was filed through the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which forwarded it in February 2000. On 10 February 2000 the Pleven Appellate Prosecutor’s Office ordered that the investigation be continued under the supervision of the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office. 11.  The Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office took over the case on 22 March 2000 and shortly after that sent it back for additional investigation. 12.  Between 15 March and 12 April 2001 the investigator interviewed seven witnesses. 13.  On 26 November 2001 he sent the file to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, proposing that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be discontinued. 14.  The prosecutor to whom the case was assigned expressed her wish to withdraw. On 31 January 2002 the head of the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected her request. Upon her appeal, on 22 February 2002 the Pleven Appellate Prosecutor’s Office upheld this decision. However, on 18 June 2002 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office quashed both decisions and sent the case to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office. 15.  On 26 June 2002 the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office sent the case back for further investigation. 16.  On 5 July 2002 the investigation authorities sent the case to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office, which on the same day transmitted it to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutor to whom the case was assigned apparently did not undertake any actions on it. 17.  On 20 April 2004 another prosecutor of the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office sent the case back for additional investigation. 18.  In the meantime, on 25 March 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Pleven Regional Court under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 (see paragraphs 31‑33 below), asking to be either brought to trial or to have the proceedings against him discontinued. Accordingly, on 15 April 2004 the Pleven Regional Court, having found that the length of proceedings against the applicant had exceeded the time stipulated in that provision, instructed the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office to indict the applicant or discontinue the proceedings. As the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office failed to comply with these instructions within the statutory two‑month time‑limit, on 26 August 2004 the Pleven Regional Court, acting upon the request of the applicant, discontinued the proceedings. This decision entered into force on 20 September 2004. 19.  On 8 April 1997 the prosecution authorities opened an investigation against the applicant on suspicion that he had obtained large-scale unlawful gains (a credit from a bank) by using forged documents, contrary to Article 212 § 3 of the CC. On 16 June 1997 the applicant was charged with the above offence and detained. On 21 July 1997 he was released on bail. 20.  On unspecified dates the charges were amended to include also forgery committed in an official capacity (contrary to Article 310 of the CC), drawing-up a false document in an official capacity (contrary to Article 311 of the CC), large-scale fraud (contrary to Article 211 of the CC), based on the allegations of a contractor with whom the applicant had a dispute about the performance of a contract, and making a false declaration to avoid paying taxes (contrary to Article 313 § 2 of the CC). 21.  On 12 and 13 February 1998 the applicant was allowed to inspect the materials in the case file. 22.  On 16 February 1998 the investigator in charge of the case finished his work and sent the file to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office with a proposal to bring the applicant to trial. 23.  On 26 January 2000 the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office dropped all charges except two – large‑scale fraud and making a false declaration. The next day, 27 January 2000, it submitted an indictment against the applicant to the Pleven District Court. 24.  On 31 January 2000 the case was set down for hearing. 25.  At the hearing, which took place on 27 April 2000, the Pleven District Court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities, noting that they had made a number of errors in charging the applicant and drafting the indictment, thus infringing his defence rights. 26.  On 13 October 2000 the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office sent the case back for further investigation. 27.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Pleven Regional Court under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 (see paragraphs 31‑33 below), asking that his case be examined on the merits by a court or, alternatively, that the proceedings be discontinued. It is unclear whether this request was acted upon. 28.  On 28 April 2004 the investigator finished his work on the case and sent it to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office with a proposal to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant. 29.  On 5 November 2004 the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the charges had not been made out. 30.  In a final decision of 7 January 2005, given pursuant to the appeal of the victim of the alleged offence, the Pleven District Court upheld the discontinuation.