5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived until his arrest in Moscow. 6.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed franchise fraud, that is, having organised a financial pyramid scheme in which more than one hundred persons had been enrolled and which had caused fraud losses of over 23,000,000 Russian roubles. Three days later a prosecutor authorised the applicant's placement in custody on the ground that he was charged with a serious criminal offence and did not have a permanent place of residence and work in the Omsk Region, thus being liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice. 7.  On 6 May and 2 July 1999 the Omsk Regional Prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 8 July and 8 September 1999 respectively, having regard to the gravity of the charges. 8.  On 3 September and 29 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, invoking the same grounds as in the previous detention orders, authorised the extension of the applicant's detention until 8 December 1999 and 8 March 2000 respectively. 9.  On 25 February and 26 June 2000 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised further extensions of the applicant's detention until 8 July and 8 September 2000 respectively. The reasons for both extensions were similar: the gravity of the charges and the applicant's liability to abscond and pervert the course of justice. 10.   According to the Government, on 11 July 2000 the pre-trial investigation was closed and three days later the applicant began studying the case file. However, as appears from a report issued on 5 July 2000 by a senior investigator from the Omsk Regional Police Department, the applicant was provided with the case file on 11 May 2000. According to the same report, the applicant had “intentionally procrastinated in reading the material in the case file” because between 15 May and 1 June 2000 he had read from 26 to 42 pages each day and in June 2000 he had read from 2 to 50 pages each day. He was warned that such behaviour was not permissible. The applicant countersigned the report and made a handwritten note stating that he had been able to study the file from two to five hours each day, had made notes and had copied documents with which he had not been issued. 11.  The Government submitted a detailed schedule showing the times and dates when the applicant had consulted the file and the volumes and pages of the file which he had studied. As appears from the schedule, in July and August 2000 the applicant studied from 20 to several hundred pages each day. On 17 August 2000 the applicant made a handwritten note in the schedule which reads as follows:
“I have read the entire case file. I ask you to provide me with a copy of a record certifying that the pre-trial investigation has ended and that the defendants and counsel have finished reading the file in accordance with Articles 201-203 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.” 12.  On 15 August 2000 the Omsk Regional Prosecutor asked the Omsk Regional Court to extend the applicant's detention for an additional six months because the applicant needed additional time to read the case file. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant and his co-defendants had participated in an organised criminal offence, had been charged with serious criminal offences, and had influenced other defendants, witnesses and victims. They were liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice. 13.  On 23 August 2000 the President of the Omsk Regional Court wrote in the corner on the first page of the prosecutor's application that he authorised the extension of the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention until 8 March 2001. 14.  On the same day the applicant was provided with several volumes of the case file for consultation. He refused to read them and an entry to this effect was made in the schedule. On 25 and 28 August 2000 an investigator brought the case file to facility no. 1, where the applicant was detained. The applicant confirmed his refusal to consult the file. According to a handwritten note made by the investigator in the schedule, on 29 August 2000 the applicant began reading volume no. 66. However, a subsequent handwritten note made by the applicant indicated that he had finished studying the file on 17 August 2000 and had no intention to do so any further. Statements with similar contents were made by the investigator and the applicant in the schedule on 30 and 31 August 2000. The schedule for September 2000 consisted of notes to similar effect by the applicant and the investigator. 15.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the order of 23 August 2000. He claimed that the maximum eighteen-month period of his detention would expire on 8 September 2000. An extension of the detention beyond eighteen months was only possible if the defendant needed more time to read the case file. The applicant insisted that on 17 August 2000 he had finished studying the file and that there were therefore no grounds for a further extension. 16.  On 22 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant's and his co-defendants' appeals against the order of 23 August 2000, quashed it and remitted the matter to the Omsk Regional Court for a fresh examination. The relevant part of the Supreme Court's decision reads as follows:
“By virtue of Articles 220-1 and 220-2 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure the judge has to examine the lawfulness and well-foundedness of the request for extension of the detention of Mr Shukhardin... and has to issue a reasoned decision as required by paragraph 8 of Article 220-2 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.
Moreover, paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure requires that [a court] should prepare minutes of a court hearing in which the issue of extension of detention is examined... [the minutes] should indicate who participated in the hearing and should reflect the progress of the examination of the materials.
The minutes of the court hearing and the reasoned decision of the judge were not included in the materials presented to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which constitutes a gross violation of the requirements of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the decision [of the President of the Regional Court] should be quashed and the case file should be sent for re-examination.
The Supreme Court cannot accept counsel's requests for release of Mr Shukhardin... because [the Supreme Court] is unable to conclude from the presented decision whether [he] is detained lawfully or unlawfully, and counsel's arguments are based on this circumstance.
In the course of the fresh consideration of the file, the [Regional] Court has to examine thoroughly all the arguments set out in the application by the Omsk Regional Prosecutor and to give a reasoned decision.
On the basis of the foregoing, and in accordance with Articles 332 and 339 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court decides:
To quash the decision of 23 August 2000 of the President of the Omsk Regional Court by which an extension of Mr Shukhardin's... detention was authorised and to refer the case back for fresh consideration...
The measure of restraint applied to Mr Shukhardin... should remain unchanged, namely detention on remand.” 17.  On 19 January 2001 the Omsk Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 8 March 2001, noting the gravity of the charges against him. The Regional Court held that the gravity of the charges could serve as the sole ground for the detention, but it also pointed to the applicant's failure to finish studying the file. 18.  According to the Government, on 21 February 2001 the applicant finished reading the file. 19.  On 3 May 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 19 January 2001, stating that the applicant had been charged with especially serious criminal offences and his detention had been authorised and extended a number of times in accordance with the requirements of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. The request for extension of the applicant's detention until 8 March 2001 had also been lodged in compliance with Russian law. The applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in the Omsk Region, where the investigation was being conducted, and he was liable to abscond. The extension of the applicant's detention was necessary because he had refused to read all the material in the case file. 20.  On 2 March 2001 the bill of indictment was served on the applicant. He was charged with aggravated fraud, forgery of documents, money laundering and organisation of a criminal enterprise. Five days later the case was referred for trial. 21.  On 10 July 2001 the Omsk Regional Court scheduled the first trial hearing. It also examined requests by the applicant and his co-defendants for release and dismissed them on the ground of the gravity of the charges. 22.  In July 2001 the applicant and his lawyer appealed against the order, arguing that the Regional Court had failed to issue a reasoned decision concerning the extension of his detention. 23.  On 25 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 10 July 2001, noting that the Regional Court had acted within its competence. The Supreme Court further held as follows:
“By virtue of Article 96 § 1 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure... in force at the time the Regional Court issued its decision [of 10 July 2001], detention could be authorised as a measure of restraint in respect of persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence punishable by more than two years' imprisonment.
As appears from the presented materials, Mr Shukhardin... was charged with criminal offences punishable by more than two years' imprisonment. Having regard to this circumstance, the investigating authorities correctly applied the measure of restraint.
By virtue of Article 222 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, when a judge schedules a court hearing, he should, among other issues, determine matters concerning the adjustment or annulment of measures of restraint.
When there is a necessity to annul a measure of restraint or to change it to a stricter or a more lenient one, a judge determines the matter and gives a decision accordingly.
As appears from the materials submitted, the [Regional Court] did not determine an issue concerning the change or annulment of the measure of restraint, and accordingly there was no need to issue a decision on the matter.” 24.  On 1 July 2002 the new Code of Criminal Procedure became effective. 25.  On the same day the Omsk Regional Court, by the same decision, extended the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention until 1 October 2002, holding that they were charged with especially serious criminal offences, had no place of residence in the Omsk Region and were liable to abscond. 26.  Ten days later the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 1 July 2002. In October 2002 he amended his grounds of appeal, asking to be released on the basis of guarantees provided by two persons, the president of a regional NGO working in the field of human-rights protection and a representative of the Moscow-based NGO “Assistance to the Reform of Criminal Justice”. 27.  On 25 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 1 July 2002, confirming that the gravity of the charges could serve as the sole ground for the applicant's and his co-defendants' continuing detention. 28.  On 1 October 2002 the Omsk Regional Court authorised a further extension of the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention until 1 January 2003. It relied on the gravity of the charges against them as the ground for the extension. 29.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed, arguing that the gravity of the charges could no longer serve as the reason for the applicant's continuing detention and that his detention was excessively long. 30.  On 17 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 1 October 2002, holding that the applicant and his co-defendants were charged with serious criminal offences and that that ground was sufficient to authorise their detention for an additional three months. 31.  On 25 December 2002 the Omsk Regional Court, once again relying on the gravity of the charges, extended the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention for an additional three months, until 1 April 2003. 32.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed. In the meantime, on 31 March 2003 the Omsk Regional Court authorised a further extension of the detention for an additional three months, until 1 July 2003, on the ground of the gravity of the charges. 33.  On 17 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 25 December 2002 and authorised the applicant's release on a written undertaking not to leave the town. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“By virtue of Article 255 of the Russian Federation Code of Criminal Procedure, a court which has jurisdiction to examine a case has the right to extend the detention of a defendant after the expiry of the six-month period following the committal of the case for trial.
A court decision concerning a measure of restraint, the type of measure taken, an extension of detention or a change of a measure of restraint should be reasoned.
When indicating the grounds for its decision concerning the extension of the detention, the court has to take into account not only the seriousness of a criminal offence with which a defendant was charged, but also other grounds and circumstances, as indicated in Articles 97 and 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This requirement of the law was not complied with when the [Regional] Court determined the matter of the extension of the defendants' detention.
As follows from the materials submitted, when extending the detention of Mr Shukhardin... and identifying the grounds for the extension of the detention, the court referred only to the fact that the defendants were charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.
Furthermore, the court decision did not indicate what had served as the ground for the extension of the detention or whether the court could have concluded that the defendants would abscond, continue criminal activities, threaten witnesses and other parties to the proceedings, and so on.
When the gravity of the charges is taken into account, [the court] should also have regard to all the legal characteristics of the criminal offence and of the person who committed it.
In particular, it is necessary to consider the character and degree of a threat to society posed by the criminal offence in question, the state of health of the defendant, his family status, including the right of detainees to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial as provided for by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As is rightfully pointed out in the grounds of appeal, the court did not take into account those circumstances and did not examine the [defendants'] arguments.
...
Having regard to the fact that the court breached the requirements of the law while determining the issue of detention and that the case is currently at the final stage of court proceedings..., the [Supreme Court] considers that the defendants cannot influence other parties to the proceedings, that they have permanent places of residence, and that they were detained for a long time [over four years], which had a negative influence on the state of their health,... and the measure of restraint should be changed to written undertakings not to leave the town.” 34.  According to the Government, on 17 April 2003 a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court was sent by special courier to Omsk, where the applicant was being detained, and arrived there on 21 April 2003. The applicant was released on the same day. According to the applicant, a copy of the decision of 17 April 2003 was sent by regular mail and arrived in Omsk on 27 April 2003. However, his lawyer brought a certified copy of that decision to Omsk on 21 April 2001. That is why he was released on the same day. 35.  On 21 April 2004 the Omsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. On 25 November 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence by one year.