5.  On 10 May 1999 the applicant was detained by the police as a suspect. Two days later he was released after questioning. He was further questioned by the police on two later occasions. On 11 August 1999 the public prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the Hämeenlinna District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). According to the indictment the applicant had concealed property, namely a retirement pension insurance of a considerable value, firstly in enforcement proceedings against him and on a later occasion in his application for legal aid concerning another set of proceedings. The summons was served on 4 October 1999. 6.  The proceedings began on 17 March 2000 with a preparatory hearing. In an oral hearing, held on 6 April 2000, the applicant was charged with aggravated fraud by a debtor and aggravated fraud. Two complainants to the case joined the first charge and presented an accessory claim for damages and legal costs. On 27 April 2000 the court dismissed the first charge, as well as the complainants’ civil claims, stating that the applicant’s actions in that respect did not constitute a criminal offence. As to the second charge, the court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to three months’ conditional imprisonment. 7.  The applicant appealed against the conviction to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The complainants also appealed against the judgment as to the dismissal of the first charge and their civil claims. They supplemented the indictment alleging that the applicant had also concealed other property besides the retirement pension insurance in the enforcement proceedings. The applicant objected to the alteration of the charge, contending that it was unlawful. The court found for the applicant on this point and examined the first charge without having regard to the alterations. On 27 June 2002, after having held an oral hearing, the court upheld the lower court’s judgment in all parts. 8.  The Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) granted the complainants leave to appeal. On 4 November 2003 the court found that their fresh allegations did not constitute a prohibited alteration of the charge and referred the case back to the District Court for re-examination in that part. 9.  After the Supreme Court’s decision, the local media took a strong interest in the case as the applicant was well-known in the region’s commercial life. 10.  The other complainant requested the District Court, twice, for an extension of the time-limit set by that court for completing the charge, as civil proceedings, allegedly related to the case, were still pending in the Supreme Court. These requests were granted on 25 April 2005 and 16 June 2005 respectively, without hearing the applicant. According to the Government, the court had taken certain procedural measures in the case even before granting those extensions. 11.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Deputy Chancellor of Justice (apulaisoikeuskansleri, biträdande justitiekanslern) contending that the proceedings had lasted too long. He made reference to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. 12.  A preparatory hearing was held by the District Court on 1 November 2005. The charge against the applicant was scheduled to be re-examined on 21 December 2005. However, the complainants waived the charge and the case was dismissed on that date without an examination of the merits. 13.  On 5 June 2006 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice gave his response to the applicant’s complaint. He noted that the additional allegations made by the complainants at the appellate stage had led to a fresh pre-trial investigation, finalised by the end of 2004. At the same time the police had investigated different offences allegedly committed by the applicant. The latter pre-trial investigation had ended in September 2005. After that, the District Court had resumed the examination of the case remitted by the Supreme Court. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice found it somewhat problematic that the fresh hearing in the District Court only took place in December 2005, although the case had been remitted already in November 2003. However, having obtained a statement from the District Court, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice was satisfied that it had been justified for that court to wait for the outcome of the additional pre-trial investigation relating to the case and to allow it to examine the remitted case and possible new charges against the applicant in joint proceedings. In these circumstances, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice took the view that the length of the proceedings had not exceeded a “reasonable time”. 14.  It does not transpire from the case file whether fresh charges against the applicant were brought and whether their examination was joined with the case remitted to the District Court.