5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Nyzhni Sirogozy. 6.  On 31 May 2013 the Solonyansky district police department in Dnipropetrovsk Region instituted criminal proceedings in respect of a carjacking. 7.  On 4 June 2013 the applicant was arrested as a suspect in connection with the incident. 8.  On 5 June 2013 the investigating judge of the Solonyansky District Court remanded the applicant in pre-trial detention until 4 August 2013 on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime, was unemployed, had no funds, did not live in the area and was not living at his official registered address. It was also considered that he might evade his procedural obligations and abscond to avoid investigation and trial. 9.  On 21 June 2013 the applicant was charged with the robbery of G., committed together with V. 10.  On 21 June 2013 the pre-trial investigation ended and the case against the applicant and V. was referred to the Solonyansky District Court. The case was then transferred to the Krasnogvardiysk District Court in Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”). 11.  On 2 August 2013 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation and remanded the applicant in custody until 1 October 2013, noting that he had been suspected of a serious crime and might continue his criminal activities. 12.  On 1 October 2013 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case and extended the detention of the applicant and V. until 29 November 2013. It noted, without going into any detail or indication to which of the co-accused it referred, that “other preventive measures will not ensure the appropriate behaviour of the accused” during the trial. 13.  On 26 November 2013 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 January 2014, noting that he and V. had been charged with serious crimes, did not live in the area and were unemployed. It was also considered that they might influence witnesses and other participants in the proceedings or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings, given that the trial had not yet started. 14.  On 27 December 2013 the applicant applied for release to the District Court complaining about, among other things, his state of health. 15.  On 21 January 2014 the District Court examined and rejected that application. The court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 March 2014 on the same grounds as those given in its previous decision of 26 November 2013. As to his health problems, the court noted that he had been treated successfully for renal colic and was fit for trial. 16.  On 19 March 2014 the District Court rejected a further application for release lodged on 26 February 2014 and extended the applicant’s detention until 19 May 2014 on the same grounds as those given on the two previous occasions, adding that he was aware of the punishment for the crime he had been charged with and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability. 17.  On 22 April, 17 June and 15 July 2014 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 June, 15 August, and 12 September 2014 respectively, on the same grounds as those given in its decisions of 26 November 2013 and 21 January 2014. 18.  On 15 August 2014 the applicant lodged another application for release with the District Court. 19.  On 4 September 2014 the District Court examined and rejected that application, extending the applicant’s detention until 2 November 2014. It repeated its previous reasoning, adding that he was aware of the punishment for the crime he had been charged with and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability. It also added that he and his co‑accused V. had no strong social ties. 20.  On 30 September 2014 the applicant lodged another application for release, which was rejected on 9 October 2014. The District Court repeated its previous reasoning, noting in addition as grounds for his detention that he was not studying. 21.  On 31 October 2014 the District Court rejected that application and extended the applicant’s detention until 29 December 2014, giving reasons similar to those given on 4 September 2014. 22.  On 9 December 2014 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 February 2015, repeating the reasoning given in its previous decisions. 23.  On 27 January 2015 the applicant and V. were convicted by the Krasnogvardiysk District Court of robbery and carjacking and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The court also decided to reduce the remainder of the prison sentence (namely the part not covered by the pre-trial detention) by half under the Amnesty Act. 24.  On 12 June 2015 the Mensky District Court in Chernigiv Region allowed the applicant’s application for early release.