5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and until his arrest lived in Vladivostok, Primorskiy Region. 6.  At the relevant time the applicant was in charge of the Alfa Bank’s branches in the Russian Far East, the central office of which was in Vladivostok. 7.  A financial audit of the branch conducted in 2003 revealed a shortage of assets amounting to several million euros. 8.  On 21 November 2003 a criminal case was opened against the applicant and seven other suspects (the “first case”). 9.  On 5 January 2004 the police charged the applicant with abuse of his position and issued an order prohibiting him from leaving Vladivostok. 10.  In August 2005 the charges were amended to multiple counts of aggravated embezzlement and money laundering committed by an organised criminal group. 11.  On 9 September 2005 the criminal investigation into several counts of embezzlement was detached from the original proceedings to create a separate criminal case (the “second case”). 12.  On 28 September 2005 the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the investigating authorities’ request to authorise the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the context of the first criminal case. It found no evidence that the accused had violated the undertaking not to leave Vladivostrok or had ever failed to comply with police orders. The court noted that the applicant was a person of mature years, permanently residing at a known address, that he had no criminal record, had never attempted to abscond, and, at the time in question had been undergoing inpatient medical treatment in a hospital. Accordingly, such a severe preventive measure as detention could not be justified. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Primosrskiy Regional Court on 21 November 2005. 13.  One month later the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the District and Regional courts’ decisions by way of supervisory review and remitted the issue for a fresh consideration. 14.  On 23 January 2006 the District Court remanded the applicant in detention. It referred chiefly to the gravity of the charges, the fact that the accused had continued informally running a legal entity, was allegedly involved in criminal activity and that he had twice failed to comply with police summonses. The court also stated that his state of health did not preclude him from detention. It concluded that, if at large, the applicant might reoffend, obstruct the proper administration of justice, or abscond. The Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal on 20 February 2006. 15.  On 21 March 2006, relying solely on the gravity of the charges, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 May 2006. The Regional Court upheld the order on appeal on 22 May 2006, stating that it had been issued in accordance with the law and duly reasoned. 16.  Over the following months the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions, including on 2 March, 1 June and 3 September 2007. Along with the gravity of the charges the courts based their decisions on the findings that “the circumstances which had initially warranted the detention had not changed” and that the applicant’s state of health, albeit poor, did not warrant his release. The aforementioned detention orders were unsuccessfully challenged on appeal on 3 March, 4 June and 7 September 2007. The Regional Court upheld them on 26 March, 3 July and 24 September 2007 respectively. 17.  In the meantime, in August 2006, the authorities completed the investigation in the second case and sent the case file, comprising 326 volumes, to the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok for examination on the merits. The investigation in the first case was completed later, in December 2007. The applicant and his accomplices were charged with 103 counts of aggravated money laundering, embezzlement and fraud committed by an organised criminal group. 18.  On 4 December 2007 the District Court held a hearing concerning the extension of the applicant’s and his co-suspects’ detention. Although the applicant was present, two of his retained lawyers failed to appear. According to the records of telephone conversations drawn up by a legal secretary, the lawyers had been informed of the hearing by telephone. To safeguard the applicant’s rights, the District Court appointed one of the duty lawyers to represent him and paused the hearing to give her an opportunity to study the case file. When the hearing resumed, the applicant’s lawyer opposed to the extension of the detention, referring, among other things, to the applicant’s health problems and the fact that the address of his residence was known. The court rejected these arguments, stating that they had been already examined and dismissed in the proceedings relating to the previous detention orders. On the grounds that the circumstances justifying the applicant’s remand in custody had not changed, the court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 March 2008. 19.  The applicant alleged that neither he nor his lawyers had been informed about the court hearing of 4 December 2007 and that the telephone conversation records from the case-file were unreliable as evidence. 20.  Two days later the applicant appealed, arguing that his lawyers had not been notified about the court hearing and had therefore been unable to attend it. As a result, his right to be defended by counsel of his choice had been violated. 21.  According to the Government, given the non-attendance of the applicant’s lawyer and the failures of the detention authorities to ensure the presence of the applicant, the proceedings were postponed on several occasions. They were eventually held on 7 February 2008. The Regional Court upheld the impugned decision, finding that the extension order was well-founded and that the District Court had lawfully appointed legal aid counsel to represent the applicant in a situation where his ordinary counsel, who had been duly summoned, had failed to attend. The appeal hearing was conducted in the presence of the applicant and his lawyers. 22.  On 3 March 2008, repeating the wording of its previous detention orders, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 June 2008. That detention order was upheld on appeal on 10 April 2008. 23.  On 27 May 2008 the District Court considered that there was no necessity for the further detention of the applicant as the investigating authorities had completed the collection of evidence, and the applicant could therefore no longer hamper the investigation. The court ordered him to be released on bail. The next day the applicant was released from detention. The court’s order was confirmed on appeal on 23 June 2008. 24.  Neither the applicant nor the Government provided the Court with information about the outcome of the criminal proceedings. From the last correspondence dated December 2010, it appears that they were still pending before the District Court. According to the information submitted by the parties, the trial was stayed on several occasions owing to the applicant’s inability to attend it on health grounds, as was confirmed by a prison doctor. It also appears that certain delays were attributed to changes in the composition of the trial court. 25.  Prior to his detention the applicant had been suffering from hypertension, had had a heart attack and had undergone coronary artery bypass surgery in a civilian hospital. 26.  During the admission procedure to a remand prison the applicant told a prison doctor about his history of heart disease and was diagnosed with coronary disease and angina pectoris. One week later he was transferred for a medical examination and treatment to the Regional Prison Hospital in Vladivostok, where he was subjected to various medical tests. They confirmed the coronary disease and showed that his angina pectoris was at an advanced stage associated with a high risk of a further heart attack. The applicant was prescribed drug therapy which, according to medical entries dated 2 February and 20 March 2006, led to an improvement in his health. 27.  On 5 April 2006 the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital. Over the following months he was moved between the remand prison and the prison hospital. 28.  Having suffered a serious hypertensive crisis in late June 2006, the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital on 7 July 2006. He remained there until his release from detention on 28 May 2008. 29.  On the day of the applicant’s admission to the prison hospital the head of the therapeutic department established that the hypertensive disease had progressed to the most advanced stage. Dietary nutrition and multidrug therapy were prescribed. 30.  Throughout his stay in the hospital the applicant was seen by the attending doctors around four times per week. Temporary augmentation of blood pressure and angina pectoris attacks were noted after the applicant’s participation in court hearings or consultations with lawyers. 31.  Despite taking four hypotensive drugs, in December 2007 the applicant suffered another hypertensive crisis. A follow-up electrocardiogram examination revealed a certain worsening of the heart condition. Some days later the applicant’s drug regimen was adjusted. The adjustment had a positive effect on his health. 32.  The applicant was discharged from the hospital for outpatient treatment in a satisfactory health condition. The doctor recommended continued intake of hypotensive and antiplatelet drugs along with medication for enhancing the cardiac metabolism.