4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 14 April 2006 the applicant was charged with verbal insult of traffic police officers, an offence punishable with a fine or with up to one year’s correctional work (“the first criminal case”). On 2 July 2009 a justice of the peace of the Tsentralnyy Circuit in Novosibirsk found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine. The applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tsentralnyy District Court in Novosibirsk on 27 September 2010. On 6 December 2010 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed his cassation appeal. 7.  On 8 October 2010 the applicant was charged with contempt of court and criminal libel of the judge who presided over the appeal proceedings in the first criminal case (“the second criminal case”). In his speech to the trial court and a blog post, he had accused her of misusing her office for political means. On 11 October 2012 the applicant was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to a fine. On 5 February 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed, in final instance, an appeal against the conviction. 8.  On 29 August 2007 the investigator made the applicant sign an undertaking to stay in Novosibirsk for the duration of the proceedings in the first criminal case. He referred to the applicant’s alleged failures to appear for interviews. 9.  In August 2008 the first criminal case was submitted for trial. As the sole guardian of his bed-ridden elderly mother, the applicant asked the trial judge to let him travel to Moscow to arrange her financial affairs. On 13 November 2008 his request was refused; the judge held that the application of the travel restriction was justified on account of the applicant’s previous failures to appear. Her decision was upheld on appeal by the District Court on 27 January 2009 and by the Regional Court on 16 March 2009. The Regional Court justified its decision in the following manner:
“Mr Manannikov stated at the hearing that, should the travel restriction be lifted, he would move freely in the Russian territory and also go abroad. Mr Manannikov also stated that he had always appeared at interviews with the investigator and court hearings and would continue to do so in the future.
His submissions confirm the fact that, if the travel restriction is lifted, Mr Manannikov could leave Novosibirsk which would hinder examination of the criminal case within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal judgment ... is lawful, justified and well-reasoned; there are no grounds to set it aside.” 10.  In February 2009 the applicant reiterated his request to be allowed to leave Novosibirsk. It was rejected by first the trial judge on 16 February 2009 and later by the District Court on 8 May 2009. 11.  On 26 May 2011 an identical travel restriction was imposed on the applicant in the second criminal case, on the ground that he had allegedly missed an interview with the investigator earlier that month. 12.  The travel restriction expired in 2013 after the proceedings in the second criminal case were terminated (see paragraph 7 above). 13.  On 12 October 2010 the applicant’s flat was searched in the framework of the second criminal case, allegedly to uncover evidence showing that he had written the blog post. The investigator located and removed his desktop and laptop computers, a memory stick, two CDs and a DVD. He examined the devices, copied the relevant contents onto a disk and put them sealed in the storage. 14.  On 18 November 2010 the investigator refused the applicant’s request to make a copy of his application to this Court and supporting documents which were stored on his computer. He stated that “the investigation had no grounds to unseal physical evidence”. 15.  The applicant applied for judicial review. On 23 December 2010 the Tsentralnyi District Court dismissed his application, holding that he would be able to make copies of any materials, including physical evidence, after the investigation had been completed. 16.  On 21 February 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. 17.  The electronics were returned to the applicant in 2013 after the conviction in the second criminal case had become final (see paragraph 7 above). 18.  The applicant retained counsel M. to represent him in the first and second criminal cases. 19.  On 22 October 2010 the investigator decided to interview M. as an eye-witness to the offence of contempt of court that the applicant was charged with. M. refused to testify on the ground that she was the applicant’s lawyer. The investigator issued the decision to remove M. as the applicant’s counsel, relying on the legal provision that prevented witnesses from representing defendants in the same criminal case. 20.  The applicant’s request for a judicial review of the investigator’s decision was unsuccessful. His complaint was rejected by the District Court on 11 February 2011 at first instance and on appeal by the Regional Court on 6 April 2011. 21.  Legal-aid lawyer S. was appointed to represent the applicant. The applicant objected to his participation and insisted that M. should be allowed to represent him. 22.  After the case was submitted for trial, the applicant complained to the trial court about a breach of his right to be defended by a lawyer of his own choosing. At the preliminary hearing on 1 July 2011, the Novosibirsk Regional Court accepted that the rights of the defence had been undermined by reason of the investigator’s failure to address the applicant’s objections to the participation of the legal-aid lawyer. The Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor with the instruction to remedy the violation. 23.  The prosecutor appealed. On 22 August 2011 the Criminal Panel of the Regional Court rejected the appeal. The Criminal Panel established that the investigator’s order had not been lawful or justified. As counsel M. had refused to testify, no conflict between the interests of the defendant and those of his representative could have arisen, and the investigator had not had any legal grounds to exclude her from the proceedings. 24.  On 23 December 2010 the applicant showed up at the District Court to hear the decision on his complaint about the retention of electronic devices (see paragraph 15 above). Towards the end of the pronouncement hearing, the investigator entered the room, accompanied by two bailiffs. They told the applicant that he would be taken to another judge of the same court who would decide on the investigator’s application for his placement for an in-patient psychiatric assessment in the framework of the second criminal case. 25.  The applicant insisted that his lawyer M. should be present. Instead, legal-aid lawyer S. was called in to represent him (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant refused the services of the lawyer S. but the court did not rule on his challenge. Moreover, the applicant objected to the prosecutor’s request, in particular, on the ground that he was the sole guardian of his ailing mother who would be left to her own devices in his absence. 26.  One hour later the District Court granted the application. It noted that the applicant did not have any known mental issues and had submitted himself to an outpatient psychiatric assessment. The experts observed that the applicant was “egocentric”, had an “exceedingly positive self-image” and “a passion for reform”. However, they were unable to determine the extent to which those character traits were pronounced or to provide responses to the investigator’s questions. Accordingly, the court considered necessary to commit the applicant for an in-patient assessment lasting no longer than thirty days with a view to determining what his mental state had been at the time the imputed offence of libel had been committed. The court further ordered that the custody of the applicant’s mother be transferred to the guardianship authority in the Oktyabrskiy District in Novosibirsk. 27.  The applicant was taken to the hospital where he went on a hunger strike in protest against his involuntary placement. He also filed grounds of appeals, complaining in particular about a breach of his right to defend himself through legal assistance of his choosing. On 30 December 2010 the applicant was released, the medical experts were satisfied as to his sanity. 28.  On 9 February 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed his appeal in a summary fashion.