6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in St Petersburg. The applicant is a lawyer. 7.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of financial wrongdoings. On 27 June 2003 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg remanded him in custody. 8.  On 20 August, 21 October and 23 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 the period of the applicant's detention was extended. It does not appear that the applicant lodged appeals against the extension orders. 9.  On 17 February 2004 the first deputy prosecutor of St Petersburg set aside the investigator's decision to change the applicant's procedural status to that of an accused. 10.  On 18 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg extended the applicant's detention until 24 March 2004. The applicant did not lodge an appeal. 11.  On 1 March 2004 the investigator issued a new decision to change the applicant's status to that of an accused. 12.  On 24 March 2004 the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office referred the case against the applicant to the Kirovskiy District Court for trial. 13.  On 29 March 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court issued a decision fixing the date of a preliminary hearing for 26 April 2004. The decision did not mention the question of the applicant's detention. 14.  On 26 April and 26 May 2004 hearings were adjourned. 15.  On 24 August and 21 December 2004 and 18 March 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention, each time for a further three months. 16.  On 11 April 2005 the St Petersburg City Court examined the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 March 2004. The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully held in custody because the authorised period of his detention had expired on 24 March 2004 and because the District Court had not taken any decision on the remand measure. The City Court rejected the appeal, finding as follows:
“The court finds that the said decision is lawful, justified and reasoned... The court had examined the issues listed in Article 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was reflected in the subsequent legal acts – of 24 August 2004 and others – including the remand matters.” 17.  On 3 and 4 May 2005 the applicant made an objection to the trial judge. He alleged that someone had approached his father and his counsel on the judge's behalf and told them that the judge would set the applicant free in exchange for a large sum of money. Replying to the prosecutor's questions, the applicant was unable to furnish any details of the alleged extortion, such as the date of the phone call. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the judge was biased because she had not promptly dispatched his appeals to the City Court. 18.  The trial judge rejected the objections as not supported by concrete evidence. On 3 October 2005 the City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 19.  On 6 June 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of a private company's property and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. On 29 May 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.