4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the Lugansk Region. 5.  The applicant is an entrepreneur. Between April 2001 and August 2002, following an inspection of his business activities, the local tax authorities drew up several reports revealing tax evasion and decided to impose taxes and fines on him. 6.  On 7 May 2001 the local tax police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion based on one of the above reports. Subsequently, the police also instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on similar charges based on the remainder of the reports, all the proceedings having been joined. 7.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. The applicant’s mother also acted as his defence counsel. 8.  On 25 June 2001 the applicant was required to give a written undertaking not to abscond implying that he could not leave his place of residence (town of Sverdlovsk) without the investigator’s permission. The applicant was explained that in case of a breach of that undertaking a stricter preventive measure could be applied to him. 9.  On 4 July 2001 the case was referred to the Sverdlovsk Court for trial. 10.  Following a request by the applicant, on 27 September 2001 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of commercial proceedings instituted by the tax authorities against him. Upon the completion of those proceedings, on 30 November 2001 the court resumed the criminal proceedings. 11.  On 28 January 2002 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. It stated that the applicant should remain subject to the undertaking not to abscond. 12.  On 25 October 2002 the case was referred to the court for trial. 13.  Following a request by the applicant, on 16 December 2002 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings instituted by him against the tax authorities (see paragraphs 27‑29 below). On 14 May 2004 the court resumed the proceedings. 14.  On 20 July 2004 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. It stated that the applicant should remain subject to the undertaking not to abscond. 15.  On 3 November 2004 the case was referred to the court for trial. 16.  Following a new request by the applicant, on 17 February 2005 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings brought by the applicant against the tax authorities. 17.  On 18 and 25 February 2005 the applicant appealed against that decision. He asked, inter alia, that the proceedings be resumed in respect of the charges based on one of the tax reports and that the suspension be maintained in respect of the remaining charges. The appeals were returned unexamined as the above-mentioned decision was not subject to appeal. 18.  On 6 July 2005 and 21 June 2006 the applicant requested that the court maintain the suspension of the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings against the tax authorities. 19.  On 3 April 2007 the court resumed the proceedings. 20.  By a judgment of 6 June 2007, it found the applicant guilty of large-scale tax evasion (Article 212 § 3 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property. The applicant’s prison sentence was suspended on probation. The court based its judgment on the statements of several witnesses, an expert examination and the findings of the commercial courts in the related civil case against the applicant. The court also held that the applicant should remain subject to the undertaking not to abscond until the judgment became final. 21.  According to the applicant, in the course of the proceedings before the Sverdlovsk Court, the court did not provide his mother with sufficient time to study the case materials and rejected his request to call an expert. 22.  On 23 October 2007 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in part as regards confiscation of property and upheld its remainder. 23.  On 23 December 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal against his conviction and the above-mentioned decision of the Court of Appeal as unsubstantiated. 24.  In the course of the proceedings, two hearings were adjourned upon the applicant’s request and twenty-three hearings were adjourned for unspecified reasons. 25.  The applicant stated that he remains subject to the undertaking not to abscond. The Government disagreed, stating that the preventive measure had been valid until 23 October 2007, when the Court of Appeal had upheld the judgment of 6 June 2007 and it had become final. 26.  The applicant also stated, without providing any further details, that he had not been granted parole. 27.  In October 2002 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the tax authorities seeking the annulment of one of the tax reports (see paragraph 5 above). 28.  Following two reconsiderations of the case, on 10 May 2005 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 18 July 2005 and 18 May 2006 respectively, the Lugansk Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court upheld the aforementioned judgment. 29.  On 12 September and 31 October 2006 the Supreme Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s requests for review of the ruling of 18 May 2006 in the light of newly-discovered circumstances. 30.  On several occasions between July 2004 and November 2007 local prosecutors rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s requests for the institution of criminal proceedings against several officials from the tax authorities. 31.  On 3 July 2006 the Lugansk Commercial Court allowed the claim lodged by the tax authorities in November 2004 against the applicant for the recovery of tax arrears and fines. On 30 October 2006 the Lugansk Commercial Court of Appeal upheld the aforementioned judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He provided no information as to the outcome of this appeal.