5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in St. Petersburg. 6.  On 5 July 1993 the Investigations Division of the St. Petersburg police department opened a criminal case into extortion committed by an organised criminal group. 7.  On 5 July 2000 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant. On 12 July 2000 he was placed on the list of fugitives from justice. 8.  On 12 December 2000 the applicant was apprehended and placed in custody. He was charged with organisation of, and participation in, a criminal enterprise and unlawful possession of firearms (Articles 209, 210 and 222 of the Russian Criminal Code). 9.  On 9 February 2001 the prosecutor of the Primorskiy district of St. Petersburg extended the applicant's detention to 12 March 2001. 10.  On 12 February 2001 the applicant's counsel asked the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg to release the applicant on bail. He submitted that the applicant had a permanent place of residence and employment in St. Petersburg, that he had to provide for his wife and a small child, that he had never attempted to abscond and that the strength of evidence was not sufficient to warrant his detention. 11.  On 19 February 2001 the Primorskiy District Court refused the application for release. It found that the investigators had had (unspecified) grounds to charge the applicant and to place him in custody, that the preventive measure had been imposed lawfully because the applicant was charged with particularly serious offences and because he had a previous conviction of a particularly serious offence. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the dangerousness of the imputed crimes could be the sole ground for placement in custody. The applicant did not appeal against the decision. 12.  On 13 March and 11 April 2001 the prosecutor of the Primorskiy district granted further extensions of the applicant's detention until 12 and 27 April 2001. 13.  On 11 April 2001 the applicant's counsel introduced a new application for release, referring to the insufficient evidentiary basis for the charges against the applicant. 14.  On 26 April 2001 the Primorskiy District Court refused the application for release. It held that the extension of detention had been lawful and justified because the extension order had been issued within the statutory time-limits and because the applicant was charged with particularly grave crimes, whose dangerousness alone was a sufficient ground for his detention. Noting the applicant's positive reference from his workplace and the fact that he had a wife and ailing child as dependants, the court stated that these circumstances would be taken into account as extenuating circumstances during the examination of the merits of the charge. 15.  On 22 May 2001 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 26 April 2001, on an appeal by the applicant's lawyer. The entire reasoning ran as follows:
“There have been no breaches of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure either when the preventive measure in the form of placement in custody was imposed on [the applicant], or when the detention was extended – the first-instance court has correctly found so in its decision and the appellant does not contest it. [The applicant] is charged with particularly serious crimes. The choice of the preventive measure is justified, as are justified all further extensions of his detention.” 16.  On 3 May 2001 the applicant was committed for trial before the St. Petersburg City Court. 17.  On 9 June 2001 the St. Petersburg City Court held a directions hearing. It ordered the joinder of the applicant's case with another case for organisation of a criminal enterprise against twenty defendants. The court refused the applicant's lawyer's new application for release on bail on the ground that the applicant was charged with “crimes presenting grave public danger”. 18.  On 28 December 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined appeals against the decision of 9 June 2001, lodged by eight defendants, including the applicant. It found as follows:
“Preventive measures in respect of all defendants, including Mr A[.] and [the applicant] who appealed against this part of the decision, were imposed in accordance with the law. The [city] court did not commit any breaches of the criminal procedure law which could have called for quashing of that decision”. 19.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant filed an application for release. He referred to financial difficulties experienced by his wife and sick child in the absence of his support, his deteriorating health and an insufficient evidentiary basis for the case against him. 20.  On 13 March 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court examined his application for release and three applications by his co-defendants and refused release in the following terms:
“[The applicant and three co-defendants] are charged with particularly serious crimes and the prosecutor adduced evidence in support of the charge... Their placement in custody is directly linked to the gravity of the charge and until such time as the merits of the case have been examined, neither hard conditions of detention, nor the defendants' state of health, even if they suffer from various diseases..., nor the conditions of their families' lives may be considered as privileged or sufficient grounds for changing the preventive measure [imposed on them].”
The applicant did not appeal against the decision. 21.  On 1 July 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court, of its own motion, extended the detention of the applicant and sixteen other defendants until 30 September 2002 on the sole ground that they were charged with particularly serious crimes. The defendants were neither present nor represented. 22.  On 16 September 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 1 July 2002 because the defendants had not been apprised of the hearing concerning the extension of their detention and because no hearing record had been compiled. The remand matter was referred for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court also rejected the applicant's request for release, stating that his arguments would be taken into account during the new examination. 23.  On 25 September 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court issued two decisions concerning remand matters. The first decision extended the detention period in respect of the applicant and sixteen other defendants to 30 September 2002 and the second decision granted a further extension to 30 December 2002. The extension orders were justified as follows:
“The gravity of the charges carrying a term of imprisonment of more than two years, is so great that until such time as the merits of the charges have been considered, neither hard conditions of detention in the remand centre, nor the state of health of the defendants – even though some of them are disabled, nor the conditions of their families' lives may be considered as privileged or sufficient grounds for changing the preventive measure [imposed on them]...
The court cannot accept the argument by the defence about the length of the proceedings because during that entire period the main ground for adjourning court hearings was counsel's absences for various causes.” 24.  On 23 December 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court released the applicant from custody against a written undertaking not to leave the town. 25.  On 15 July 2004 the St. Petersburg City Court gave judgment. The applicant was acquitted of all charges for lack of incriminating evidence. Many of his co-defendants were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 26.  On 17 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined notices of appeal lodged by the applicant's co-defendants but not by the applicant himself and upheld the judgment.