4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and, prior to his conviction, lived in Yaroslavl. 5.  On 15 April 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. Subsequently, he was charged with fraud, attempted fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion and a breach of duties in his work as a tax agent. 6.  On 16 April 2008 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The judge found that (1) the applicant was suspected of serious crimes, (2) he might abscond, (3) he might put pressure on witnesses, or (4) he might interfere with the investigation. 7.  On 25 April 2008 the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld the detention order of 16 April 2008 on appeal. 8.  The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial. The courts extended his detention, using the same stereotyped formula as described above. 9.  On 16 March 2009 he was committed for trial before the Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl. 10.  On 27 October 2009 he was convicted of the charges and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. 11.  On 29 December 2009 the Yaroslavl Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 12.  On 25 January 2010 the trial court ordered his release on bail. 13.  On 27 January 2010 the bail was paid and the applicant was released. 14.  On 20 July 2010 the applicant was convicted of fraud and attempted fraud and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. 15.  On 19 October 2010 the Yaroslavl Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 16.  On 2 December 2014 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration. They acknowledged that the applicant had been detained “between 15 April 2008 and 27 October 2009 ... without relevant and sufficient grounds”, in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay him a sum of 1,850 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction and invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. 17.  On 2 February 2015 the applicant replied that he had taken note of the Government’s acknowledgment of the violation, but that the amount of compensation was not acceptable to him.