5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow. He is a political activist, opposition leader, anti-corruption campaigner and popular blogger. 6.  In 2011-12 the applicant ran an increasingly public anti-corruption campaign targeting high-ranking public officials (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 15, 23 February 2016). He organised and led a number of rallies (see, in particular, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, 15 November 2018), including an assembly at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012 (see, among other sources, in Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). 7.  At the beginning of 2012 the applicant investigated the off-duty activities of the chief of the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation (“the Investigation Committee”), Mr Bastrykin. On 25 April 2012 the Investigation Committee, on the direct order of Mr Bastrykin, instituted criminal proceedings for embezzlement against the applicant (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov, cited above, hereinafter “the Kirovles case”). On 5 July 2012 Mr Bastrykin made a public statement expressing his determination to have the applicant prosecuted. On 26 July 2012 the applicant published an article about Mr Bastrykin, alleging in particular that his business activities and residence status in the Czech Republic were incompatible with the office he held, under the domestic law (ibid., §§ 30‑31 and 118). 8.  On 4 December 2012 the Investigation Committee decided to open a criminal file on suspicion that the applicant and his brother had committed fraud against the limited liability companies Multidisciplinary Processing (“MPK) and Yves Rocher Vostok and laundered the proceeds of illegal transactions. On 20 December 2012 charges of fraud and money laundering were brought against the applicant under Articles 159.4 and 174.1 § 2 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. 9.  On 17 December 2012 the Investigation Committee ordered the applicant not to leave the city of Moscow pending the completion of the investigation to secure his appearance before the investigator. On the same date the investigator granted a request from the applicant to be allowed to travel to Moscow Region (outside the city of Moscow), subject to an obligation to inform the investigator. The investigator’s ruling read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The request by [the applicant’s lawyer] to allow his client A.A. Navalnyy to travel to Moscow Region should be granted; the investigator must be informed about making [such] journeys.” 10.  On 18 July 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Kirov found the applicant guilty of organising large-scale embezzlement in the Kirovles case and gave him a suspended prison sentence of five years. The Court subsequently found that those proceedings had been conducted in violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov, cited above, §§ 102-21). 11.  On 13 January 2014 the applicant informed the investigator that he had travelled to Moscow Region before and during the New Year holidays. On the same day the Investigation Committee cancelled his permit to travel to Moscow Region and ordered him to seek prior authorisation from the investigator for such travel. The applicant also received a warning for travelling to Moscow Region without proper authorisation from the investigator. 12.  On 14 January 2014 the Investigation Committee rejected a new request from the applicant for permission to travel to Moscow Region. 13.  On 31 January 2014 the applicant complained to the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the travel ban. The examination of the complaint was postponed several times because of the absence of parties and the failure of the investigation body to present documents from the criminal case file. 14.  On 24 February 2014 the applicant went to Zamoskvoretskiy District Court in Moscow to attend the public pronouncement of a verdict in a criminal case concerning the political rally on Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012, but he was arrested in front of the court building. He was arrested for a second time later the same day during a demonstration in the centre of Moscow against the criminal convictions in the aforementioned criminal case. He was accused of a breach of regulations for holding a demonstration and of an alleged failure to obey the lawful orders of the police and was found liable for those administrative offences under Articles 20.2 and 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. 15.  On 26 February 2014 the Investigation Committee asked the Basmannyy District Court to place the applicant under house arrest pending the completion of the criminal investigation. The applicant objected and referred to his complaint of 31 January 2014. He asked that the residence order be maintained or, in the alternative, that he pay bail of 500,000 roubles (RUB). 16.  On 28 February 2014 the Basmannyy District Court ordered that the applicant be placed under house arrest until 28 April 2014 because of a risk that he might abscond, continue his criminal activity, threaten witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The court also referred to his criminal record after the Kirovles case and his recent conviction for administrative offences (see paragraph 14 above). It imposed a number of conditions on the applicant for the period of his house arrest, in particular:
“-  [it is forbidden] to leave or change the [registered address] without authorisation by the investigator ...;
-  to communicate with anyone, except for immediate family, as defined by law, legal counsel representing him in the criminal case and [investigating officials];
-  to receive or send any correspondence, including letters, telegrams, parcels and emails;
-  to use any means of communication or the Internet telecommunications network;
-  to make statements, declarations, addresses or to give comments in connection with this criminal case in the media.” 17.  On 3 March 2014 the applicant was placed under the supervision of the Department for the Execution of Sentences. He was notified of the conditions of his house arrest and was tagged with an electronic tracking bracelet. The applicant stayed in his two-bedroom apartment, where he lived with his wife and two children, throughout the period of his arrest. He was not allowed to go to work, take walks, carry out errands or leave his apartment for any purpose other than to attend procedural acts in his criminal case and occasional medical appointments. 18.  On 24 March 2014 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against his house arrest and upheld the restraint measure. 19.  On 14 April 2014 the applicant’s criminal case was submitted to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow. 20.  On 21 April 2014 the Basmannyy District Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint about the ban on travel to Moscow Region. It declined jurisdiction in favour of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court on the grounds that the criminal case had already been submitted there and terminated the proceedings. The applicant appealed against that decision. 21.  On 24 April 2014 the District Court held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant’s house arrest until 14 October 2014, dismissing his appeal. The applicant did not appeal against the extension. 22.  On 28 April 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court remitted the applicant’s case for further investigation, a decision which was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 18 June 2014. 23.  On 1 August 2014, after an application by the prosecutor to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court reviewed the preventive measure. It held that the circumstances justifying house arrest, including the special restrictions, had remained unchanged and found no reason to order pre-trial detention. It rejected a request from the applicant to be allowed daily walks. 24.  On 4 August 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the Basmannyy District Court’s decision of 21 April 2014 to terminate proceedings on the applicant’s complaint about the travel ban. 25.  On 14 August 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court began hearing the applicant’s criminal case. On the same date it extended the applicant’s house arrest, which the applicant did not appeal against. 26.  On 21 August 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court changed the conditions of the applicant’s house arrest as follows:
“The [applicant’s] application should be granted and the ban on communication imposed when the order for his house arrest was issued [should] be lifted, [and] it should be made clear that [the applicant] is prohibited from communicating in any form with persons [given the status of] witnesses in this criminal case.” 27.  On 10 October 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant’s house arrest after lifting the prohibition on “making statements, declarations, addresses or giving comments in connection with this criminal case in the media” on the basis that it was not in compliance with Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time it specified radio and television as being among the banned means of communication. It refused to allow the applicant to go to work, take walks or receive correspondence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. 28.  On 30 December 2014 the applicant and his brother were found guilty of money laundering and of defrauding MPK and Yves Rocher Vostok, and were convicted under Articles 159.4 §§ 2 and 3 and 174.1 § 2 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code. The applicant received a suspended sentence of three and a half years and a fine RUB 500,000 and had to pay damages to MPK. The court ordered that the applicant should remain under house arrest. On that day the court delivered only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment. Delivery of the judgment in full was adjourned until 12 January 2015. 29.  The applicant appealed against the extension of his house arrest on 31 December 2014. 30.  On 5 January 2015 the applicant issued a public statement that he refused to comply with the terms of his house arrest, citing in particular the fact that he had not been served with a written extension order, even though five days had elapsed since the court’s decision. The applicant illustrated his statement with a photograph of his tracking bracelet having been cut open. No one stopped him or sanctioned him when he left his flat to go to his office. 31.  On 14 January 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint about the extension of his house arrest on 30 December 2014 on the grounds that the measure had been ordered in the judgment on the merits of the criminal case and had not been a procedural decision concerning pre-trial issues. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. 32.  On 17 February 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the first‑instance judgment, except for the part imposing a fine and awarding damages to MPK, which was quashed. 33.  On 27 April 2015 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. 34.  On 26 June 2015 the Moscow City Court refused leave to lodge a cassation appeal.