4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Rostov-on-Don. 5.  On 16 May 1997 the Investigation Division of the Novocherkassk Town Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of arbitrary actions. He gave a written undertaking not to leave the town. 6.  The case was referred for trial to the Novocherkassk Town Court. At the hearing on 26 November 1997 the applicant successfully challenged the presiding judge and the registrar.  On 22 January 1998 the new presiding judge was assigned to the case. At the first hearing on 16 April 1998 the Town Court accepted the applicant's request for additional witnesses and adjourned the proceedings until 15 June 1998. 7.  Of the seven hearings fixed between 15 June 1998 and 11 January 1999, one was postponed due to the counsel's absence, and five were adjourned because the applicant's co-defendant, Ms F., and witnesses did not attend. On 10 December 1998 the Novocherkassk Town Court ordered the police to bring Ms F. to the hearings. 8.  On 12 January 1999 the applicant's lawyer challenged the presiding judge, the registrar and the prosecutor. The Novocherkassk Town Court accepted the motion in respect of the presiding judge and appointed a new judge, B. It appears that the first hearing was fixed for 29 April 1999. 9.  On 11 May 1999 the applicant asked the Novocherkassk Town Court to assign another judge. He argued that the presiding judge B. was a close friend of a police officer who had performed the pre-trial investigation in his case. The Novocherkassk Town Court removed judge B., assigned judge M. to the case and fixed the first hearing for 5 June 1999. 10.  Of the twenty-one hearings fixed between 5 June 1999 and 25 January 2001, ten were adjourned because Ms F., the victims and witnesses defaulted and eleven were postponed because the accused, including the applicant, their counsel and the witnesses did not attend. According to the Government, the Novocherkassk Town Court issued several decisions authorising the police to ensure Ms F.'s presence at the hearings. 11.  On 25 January 2001 the presiding judge M. dismissed himself from the trial. The judge held that he had “formed a negative attitude towards the accused and their counsel” because on numerous occasions they had defaulted and had not notified the reasons for their absence. The judge considered that this could influence his impartiality. 12.  On 20 February 2001 judge Z. was assigned to the case. She fixed the first hearing for 22 March 2001. 13.  Of the twenty-two hearings listed between 22 March 2001 and 16 April 2002, nine were postponed because the witnesses and victims defaulted and six were adjourned because the accused, the victims and witnesses did not attend. 14.  The prosecutor asked the Town Court to remit the case for an additional inquiry to correct certain procedural defects made during the pre-trial investigation. On 19 April 2002 the Town Court accepted the request and returned the case-file to the Novocherkassk Town prosecutor's office. The Rostov Regional Court upheld that decision on 16 June 2002, despite the applicant's protest. 15.  The prosecutor re-opened the investigation on 5 September 2002 and on the same day discontinued the criminal proceedings because the statutory limitation period had expired. The investigator withdrew the applicant's written undertaking not to leave the town. 16.  On 24 December 2002 the Rostov Regional Court, in the final instance, declared the decision of 5 September 2002 unlawful. It ordered the prosecutor to correct certain procedural defects. 17.   The acting prosecutor of Novocherkassk annulled the decision of 5 September 2002 and re-opened the investigation.  On 25 December 2002 the proceedings were again closed because there was no indication of a criminal offence and, furthermore, the limitation period had expired. 18.  The decision of 25 December 2002 was annulled by the prosecutor of the Rostov Region. An additional investigation was initiated. On 26 May 2003 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings. On 17 June 2003 the first deputy prosecutor of the Rostov Region considered that the decision of 26 May 2003 was unlawful and re-opened the investigation. 19.  On 30 June 2003 the investigator discontinued the proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused because there was no indication of a criminal offence. He informed the applicant that he had the right to rehabilitation and compensation for damage. 20.  On 7 July 2003 a deputy prosecutor of Novocherkassk annulled the decision of 30 June 2003 because “certain provisions of the criminal procedural law of the RSFSR had been violated during the investigation”, re-opened the investigation and sent the case-file to the investigation division of the Novocherkassk Town police department. It appears that the criminal case against the applicant is still pending.