5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Cheboksary. He is a former head of the civil law department in the Cheboksary State University. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 28 February 2004 baby V. was born. One month later her mother, H., sued the applicant to establish his paternity and to receive alimony. A genetic study confirmed the applicant’s paternity in respect of V.; however, a medical study concluded that the pregnancy “could not have occurred naturally”. 8.  On 7 December 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court in Cheboksary held a hearing with the participation of the applicant and Ms H. and rejected her claim. On 31 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for a new examination. 9.  On 17 October 2005 the District Court gave judgment in favour of H. It was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court on 14 December 2005 in particular on the ground that the parties had not been informed of the date and place of the hearing in which genetics experts had been cross-examined. 10.  In March 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large-scale bribery. He was detained in remand prison IZ-21/1 in Cheboksary. 11.  On 15 March 2007 the District Court sent a letter of request (судебное поручение) to the director of the remand prison, asking him to clarify the applicant’s position on the merits of the dispute and to ascertain whether he agreed to having the matter examined in his absence or wished to appoint a representative. On 20 March the director interviewed the applicant who declared his wish to take part in the proceedings and to defend himself in person. The applicant also claimed that he possessed new evidence he wished to submit to the court. On 26 March the District Court refused the applicant leave to be present at the hearings on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure made no provision for bringing detainees to courts. 12.  On 4 April 2007 the District Court held the hearing in the presence of Ms H., as well as Mr K. and Ms U. who represented the applicant. The judgment of the same date was given in Ms H.’s favour. It mentioned that the applicant was held in a remand prison, that he did not recognise the paternity and that he had “previously given similar testimony before the court”. 13.  On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. It held that the applicant’s absence from the hearing did not entail a violation of his rights because he had been represented and had previously given testimony to the court. 14.  On 9 June 2007 the applicant was released on bail. 15.  On 27 March 2008 the Moskovskiy District Court decided that he had breached the terms of the bail by exercising pressure on witnesses, issued a detention order and put the applicant’s name on the list of fugitives from justice. The applicant was not present at the hearing and could not be immediately re-arrested. 16.  At about 11 p.m. on 8 April 2008 three police officers showed up at the entrance of the applicant’s residence. They had been allegedly tipped off that the applicant was there. As it happened, the applicant received in-patient treatment at the infections centre but his daughter was inside. 17.  She did not open the door to the police immediately and told them that her father was in a hospital. According to her, the police began banging at the door and threatened her to break in. She was thus compelled to open the door. The police entered the flat, inspected all the rooms, opened closets and boxes, lifted the sofa and bed, and then left. 18.  On the following day the applicant was arrested and placed in custody. 19.  On 24 April 2008 the Supreme Court found that the detention order of 27 March 2008 was not justified. In its view, the District Court had wrongly attached decisive weight to the statements by witnesses who had not mentioned any actual threats emanating from the applicant. The Supreme Court quashed the detention order and released the applicant. 20.  The applicant complained to a prosecutor about the unlawful actions of the police on 8 April 2008. On 16 May 2009 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. 21.  The applicant then sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation in respect of an unauthorised search of his home carried out by the police. The District Court heard a number of witnesses. The applicant’s daughter insisted that the police officers’ presence in the flat had lasted as long as two and a half hours. The officer K. testified that he had entered the flat with the consent of the applicant’s daughter and that he had stayed inside no longer than two or three minutes. He had not searched the flat or opened closets. S., a relative who was present at the scene, stated that the police had entered the flat with the daughter’s consent, that they had “moved beds, looked under the carpets, displaced closets and paintings, gone into the basement”. 22.  By judgment of 29 October 2009, the Leninskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. Citing section 11 of the Police Act and section 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the District Court held that the officers had acted lawfully, on the basis of the detention order of 27 March 2008, and that they had the right to enter the applicant’s flat because they had information that he might have been at home. Since the Russian law only established the right to compensation in case of unlawful actions, the applicant’s claim was dismissed. 23.  On 9 December 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s judgment on appeal. 24.  On 17 April 2009 the Moskovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of forcing students to pay bribes into the account of his law firm in exchange of passing grades and gave him a custodial sentence. On 2 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 25.  The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation in connection of his unlawful detention from 9 to 24 April 2008. 26.  By judgment of 27 November 2009, the Leninskiy District Court rejected his claim, noting that the applicant had been ultimately convicted in the criminal proceedings and given a custodial sentence and that the Supreme Court had quashed the detention order as being “unjustified” rather than “unlawful”. In the latter case, no compensation was payable. 27.  On 11 January 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.