4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Naberezhnyye Chelny. 5.  The applicant was a police officer. On 1 November 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of having extracted a bribe. 6.  On 10 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic convicted the applicant and sentenced him to imprisonment. He stayed under the obligation not to leave his place of residence in Naberezhnyye Chelny until the conviction became final. He could leave his place of residence only upon the summons from the investigator or the court. 7.  Several parties to the criminal proceedings, including the applicant, appealed against the conviction. The case was forwarded to the Russian Supreme Court in Moscow, 1,000 km away from Naberezhnyye Chelny. The applicant never received any summons to the appeal hearing due to the Supreme Court’s mistake in the postal code. Neither did he receive copies of the statements of appeal filed by the prosecutor, by the co-accused, G., and the latter’s lawyer. 8.  On 28 February 2006 the conviction was upheld by the Russian Supreme Court. The prosecutor and G.’s lawyer attended the appeal hearing. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present. 9.  In 2011 the applicant lodged a compensation claim for non-pecuniary damages caused by poor conditions of detention. In the text of his claim the applicant explicitly asked the court to consider the claim in his absence. On 14 April 2011 the Bugulminskiy Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic dismissed his claim. The applicant received the notification of the time and date of the hearing after the hearing had actually taken place. 10.  The first-instance judgment was upheld on 4 July 2011 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic. The applicant had been notified of that hearing on 29 June 2011.