B.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant

.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention on the following grounds:

“[The applicant] is suspected of having committed several offences, one of which is particularly grievous. If at liberty, he may continue his criminal activities, interfere with the investigation or put pressure on witnesses. He might abscond or prevent the investigation of the truth.”

.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and the intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).

.  On 7 February 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005.

.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant’s charge was amended to that of participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

.  On 14 April 2005 the District Court granted the prosecution’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005, for the following reasons:

“... the defendants and their counsel have started to study the case file. Given the file size (12 volumes) and the number of persons studying it (39 defendants and their counsel), the court considers that there are sufficient reasons to extend [the applicant’s] detention for three months, because he has not yet finished studying the case file while his counsel has not yet started.

Notwithstanding the fact that [the applicant] has a registered place of residence in Moscow, the court, taking into account the gravity of charges and the fact that the grounds justifying his placement into custody still persist today, sees no reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure.”

.  On 19 May 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 April 2005 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified.

.  On 7 June 2005 the investigation was completed and thirty-nine persons, including the applicant, were committed for trial. On 20 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow scheduled the preliminary hearing for 30 June 2005 and decided that all the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.

.  On 30 June 2005 the District Court held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants’ requests for release taking into account their characters, age, state of health, family situation and stability of lifestyle. However, it found, referring to the gravity of the charges, that “the grounds on which the preventive measure [had been] previously imposed, still exist[ed]” and that “the case file gave sufficient reasons to believe that, once released, the defendants would flee or interfere with the trial”. It therefore ordered that all the defendants should remain in custody pending trial.

.  On an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant and his codefendants lodged applications for release. The District Court rejected these requests on 27 July 2005, finding that their detention was lawful and justified. On 5 October 2005 the City Court upheld the decision of 27 July 2005 on appeal.

.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants lodged new applications for release. On the same day the District Court rejected the requests. It held:

“The court takes into account the defence’s argument that an individual approach to each defendant’s situation is essential when deciding on the preventive measure.

Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended the detention period in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist today. Therefore, having regard to the state of health, family situation, age, profession and character of all the defendants, and to the personal guarantees offered on their behalf by certain private individuals and included in the case file, the court concludes that, if released, each of the applicants might abscond or obstruct the course of justice in some other way ...

In the court’s view, in these circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the charges, there are no grounds for varying or revoking the preventive measure in respect of any defendant ...”

.  On 2 November 2005 the City Court upheld the decision of 10 August 2005 on appeal.

.  On 16 November 2005 the District Court extended the detention in respect of all the defendants, including the applicant, until 7 March 2006. The court stated as follows:

“According to the materials in the criminal case file, the circumstances taken into account by the court when it authorised the pre-trial detention period and its extension for all the defendants still persist.

Regard being had to the above and taking into account the state of health, family situation, age, employment and character of all the defendants, the court concludes that, if at liberty, each of them might abscond or otherwise interfere with the criminal proceedings.”

.  On 8 December 2005 the District Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of participation in mass disorder. It gave the applicant a three-year suspended sentence and then released the applicant on three years’ probation.