5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sevastopol. 6.  At about 5 a.m. on 26 January 2002 the applicant had a fight in a local bar during which injuries were sustained by bar staff and damage was caused to property in the bar. The police arrived to handle the matter. They took the applicant and his companion, I., to the police station. The applicant was arrested for an administrative offence of “minor disorderly acts” provided for in Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences. 7.  On 28 January 2002 the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) found the applicant guilty of the above offence and sentenced him to five days’ administrative detention. The court set out the following grounds for the conviction:
“... At about 5 a.m. on 26 January 2002 Tarasov, being drunk in the [L.N.] bar located at ... used obscene language about the bar staff, grabbed and swung a wooden chair leg, threatened physical violence, ignored the remarks addressed to him, and thereby breached the public order and peace of the citizens. In other words, he engaged in minor disorderly acts. ...” 8.  The judgment was not open to appeal and became final. 9.  On 29 January 2002 the investigator of Nakhimosvkyy District Police Department of Sevastopol instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and I. for disorderly acts in the bar on 26 January 2002. At a certain point an additional charge against the applicant was included in the case in relation to the injuries which he had allegedly caused to his wife in a separate incident. 10.  On 14 October 2003 the District Court adopted the judgment in the criminal case. It also resolved a civil dispute lodged by the victims within the criminal proceedings. With respect to the applicant, the District Court convicted him of two offences: the offence provided for in Article 122 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“intentional infliction of medium-severity bodily injuries”) and the offence provided for in Article 296 § 4 of the Criminal Code (“disorderly acts” with aggravating circumstances). 11.  As regards the first crime the District Court found it established that on 13 August 2001 the applicant had beaten his wife, intentionally causing injuries of medium severity. 12.  As to the second crime, the District Court established that at about 4.30 a.m. on 26 January 2002 the applicant and his accomplice I., both drunk and armed with wooden chair legs, entered the L.N. bar where they committed a serious breach of public order. In describing the applicant’s conduct, the court stated that the latter, using obscene language, approached a table occupied by N., B., and K. (bar employees) and, using the wooden chair leg, inflicted minor bodily injuries on N. and K. The applicant also hit N. on the head with a bottle. Further, the applicant hit a table, which was covered with dishes, using the wooden chair leg, he then broke a mop and threw a beer bottle at the wall, thus causing damage to property. The applicant then went up to a waitress, M., kicked her in the hip and slapped her in the face. 13.  In its judgment the District Court cited statements of the victims and some indirect evidence to support these factual findings. In particular, it referred to the statements of N., B., K., and M., who had submitted that the applicant had shouted obscenities, threatened physical violence, inflicted the above-mentioned injuries and caused damage to property, and that B. had tried to calm him down. 14.  The District Court classified the applicant’s acts under Article 296 § 4 of the Criminal Code as the offence of “disorderly acts” committed with the use of an instrument constructed beforehand to inflict bodily injuries (the wooden chair leg). It sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment for the two crimes taken together, combined with mandatory medical treatment in prison. The District Court also considered the applicant’s objection that he had earlier been convicted of an administrative offence as regards the same events of 26 January 2002. That argument was dismissed by the court on the ground that the applicant had previously been convicted under the Code of Administrative Offences and had received an administrative penalty, which was a different type of legal responsibility; accordingly, the administrative case did not constitute any obstacle to the criminal proceedings. 15.  On 20 July 2004 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction, having amended the judgment of the District Court as regards the medical treatment of the applicant and his civil liability. On 27 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed, in the absence of the applicant, his appeal on points of law. The applicant was informed of the Supreme Court decision by the letter sent to him on 21 May 2005. The applicant’s allegation that he had been tried and punished twice for the same offence was dismissed by both courts as unfounded.