4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Kharkiv. 5.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant was charged with aggravated smuggling. The prosecution's case was that he had arranged for an aircraft to be sold to a Russian company in breach of the relevant customs rules. 6.  On 25 December 1996 an investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Security Service (Управління Служби Безпеки України по Харківській області hereafter “the USBU”) informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation had been completed and granted him access to the case-file. 7.  On an unknown date in early February 1997 the investigator drew up the bill of indictment and submitted it to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (Харківська обласна прокуратура, hereafter “the Prosecutor's Office”) for approval. On 14 February 1997 the Prosecutor's Office decided that further investigations were necessary and remitted the case to the USBU. 8.  By July 1997 the investigator had questioned over 40 witnesses.  On 25 July 1997 he declared the pre-trial investigation completed, and allowed the applicant to consult the case-file. 9.  On 12 August 1997 the Prosecutor's Office sent the case-file together with the bill of indictment to the Kiyevsky District Court of Kharkiv (Київський районний суд м. Харкова, hereafter “the Kiyevsky Court”) for trial proceedings. 10.  The trial commenced on 16 October 1997. 11.  On 1 December 1997, after eight hearings, the Kiyevsky Court remitted the case for further investigations. On 20 January 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Court rejected the prosecution's appeal against this ruling. On 24 June 1998 the Presidium of the Kharkiv Regional Court dismissed a protest (extraordinary appeal) of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region against these decisions. 12.  On 30 March 1998, in the context of the additional investigation ordered by the Kiyevsky Court, the applicant's charges were amended to include a forgery by an official. 13.  On 1 June 1998 the additional investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file. On 3 June 1998 the investigator sent the bill of indictment to the Prosecutor's Office for approval. On 24 June 1998 the Prosecutor's Office remitted the case for further investigations. 14.  On 10 July 1998 the investigator requested the Russian authorities to question several witnesses living in Moscow. On 26 August 1998 some of those witnesses were questioned and the minutes were provided to the Ukrainian authorities. A similar request for the Russian authorities to question witnesses living in Khabarovsk, filed on 20 October 1998, was not acted on. 15.  On 4 November 1998 the investigator ordered an expert examination of the whether the aircraft was fit to fly. 16.  On 25 December 1998 the investigator informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation in his case was completed. Between that date and 1 July 1999 the applicant and his co-accused Mr I. had access to the case‑file. 17.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant was additionally charged with abuse of power. 18.  On 1 July 1999 the Prosecutor's Office approved the bill of indictment and transmitted the case to the Kiyevsky Court. 19.  In the period to 5 July 2001 the court held 20 hearings, examined several motions of the applicant, Mr. I and the company which had bought the aircraft, which had joined the proceedings as a civil claimant. Between 15 and 22 June 2001 the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant's illness. 20.  On 6 July 2001 Kiyevsky Court remitted part of the case file for further investigations. The applicant appealed. On 22 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Харківської області, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant's appeal against this ruling. 21.  On 18 February 2002 the Kiyevsky Court decided that the remainder of the case also needed additional investigations. 22.  On 22 April 2002 the charges against the applicant were amended in accordance with the new Criminal Code which had entered into force on 1 September 2001. 23.  On 26 April 2002 the investigator completed the pre-trial investigation and granted the applicant and his co-accused access to the case file. On 12 July 2002 the case-file and the bill of indictment were sent to the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv (Червонозаводський районний суд м. Харкова hereafter “the Chervonozavodsky Court”). The judge fixed the preparatory hearing for 22 August 2002; it was adjourned until 11 September 2002 because Mr I. was ill. 24.  On 11 September 2002 the Chervonozavodsky Court committed the applicant for trial and fixed the first hearing on the merits for 28 October 2002. 25.  Between October 2002 and November 2003 the trial court held three hearings. Eight sittings scheduled for this period were cancelled because investigator or the prosecutor failed to appear. On two occasions the hearings were adjourned due to the judge's illness and holiday. Two more sittings were cancelled on account of Mr I.'s and the applicant's absence. 26.  Between December 2003 and June 2004 the proceedings were suspended because the authorities had not provided the witnesses living outside Kharkiv with appropriate accommodation during the hearings. 27.  Between 15 June and 13 October 2004 the trial court held fourteen hearings. 28.  On 13 October 2004 the Chervonozavodsky Court acquitted the applicant, having found no corpus delicti in the imputed actions. The prosecution and the applicant appealed. The latter sought an acquittal on the ground that there had been no crime rather than no corpus delicti. The civil claimant also filed an appeal. 29.  On 31 March 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) decided not to entertain the prosecution's appeal on the ground that it was not signed by the prosecutor who had participated in the proceedings before the first instance court. The appeals of the applicant and the civil claimant were rejected as unsubstantiated. The same parties appealed in cassation. 30.  On 11 April 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 31 March 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh appellate hearing on the ground that the Court of Appeal's refusal to entertain the prosecutor's appeal had not been reasonable. 31.  On 1 August 2006 the Court of Appeal granted the prosecutor's appeal, quashed the judgment of 13 October 2004 and remitted the case to the Prosecutor's Office for further pre-trial investigations. 32.  Since 23 January 1997 the applicant has brought seventeen complaints with higher prosecutions authorities, challenging the conduct of criminal proceedings in his case. 33.  The investigation in the case is still pending.