5.  On 18 March 1999 a truck containing kitchen appliances was stolen while it was parked in a residential neighbourhood. Several hours later, acting on a tip-off, the police apprehended the applicant, who gave flight, and an accomplice while they were unloading the kitchen appliances from the stolen truck. 6.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant was charged, inter alia, with grand larceny, which constituted a serious intentional offence. The charges against him were amended on 14 and 29 April 1999. 7.  The preliminary investigation was concluded on 30 April 1999. 8.  On 7 July 1999 the Varna Regional Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Varna Regional Court. The applicant was charged that in collusion with other persons, his co-accused and an unidentified third individual who escaped arrest, attempted to commit grand larceny of the kitchen appliances and to steal the truck. 9.  The Varna Regional Court started hearing the case on 9 February 2000. 10.  In a judgment of 28 November 2000 the applicant was found guilty by the Varna Regional Court of larceny of significant value (Article 195 § 2 of the Criminal Code) in respect of the kitchen appliances. The charges of grand larceny, theft of the truck and collusion were dismissed as unproven. The applicant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a previous suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment was also enforced. The time spent by the applicant in pre-trial detention was deducted from the sentence to be served. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment. 11.  In a judgment of 28 August 2001 the Varna Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's judgment and found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was just and fair, considering the offence for which he had been found guilty. On an unspecified date the applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment. 12.  In a final judgment of 8 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment. 13.  The applicant was arrested on 18 March 1999 on suspicion of having committed grand larceny. 14.  When he was charged with the offence on 19 March 1999 the applicant was detained on remand under an order issue by an investigator and confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office. The reason given for detaining the applicant was that he had committed the offence soon after having been released on bail on 1 March 1999 in the context of a preliminary investigation concerning a charge of extortion. Those proceedings were subsequently terminated on 18 November 1999 and the imposed bail was lifted. 15.  When the charges against the applicant were amended by an investigator on 14 April 1999 no specific grounds were given for continuing his detention. 16.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed his first appeal against his detention, which the Varna Regional Court examined at a hearing on 26 April 1999. The court dismissed it as it found that the applicant's detention was mandatory insofar as he was charged with a serious intentional offence and also that there was a risk that he might abscond or re-offend given his past criminal record, the existence of a suspended sentence against him which would be enforced if he was found guilty in these proceedings and the fact that he had re-offended soon having after been released on bail in the context of the preliminary investigation for extortion. 17.  When the charges against the applicant were amended by an investigator on 29 April 1999 no specific grounds were given for continuing his detention. 18.  The applicant's next appeal, dated 19 July 1999 and followed up by a second request of 3 September 1999, was dismissed by a decision of the Varna Regional Court on 24 September 1999, which was upheld on 11 October 1999 by the Varna Court of Appeals. The courts found that the applicant's detention was mandatory as he was charged with a serious intentional offence, that he had re-offended soon after being released on bail in the context of the second criminal proceedings and that there was a risk that he might abscond or re-offend. 19.  In another appeal, dated 1 and 10 December 1999, the applicant claimed that there was insufficient evidence that he was guilty, that there was a change in the circumstances regarding his detention because his health had deteriorated and his family was having grave financial difficulties without him. By decision of 15 December 1999 the Varna Regional Court, in camera, dismissed his appeal, which was later upheld by the Varna Court of Appeals on 27 December 1999. The courts found that there were no new circumstances requiring a reassessment of the need to continue the applicant's detention, because he had failed to substantiate his assertions regarding his deteriorating health and the dire financial condition of his family. The courts also noted that there was another preliminary investigation pending against him. 20.  At a hearing on 6 March 2000 before the Varna Regional Court the applicant's counsel once again appealed against his detention and claimed that his family's situation had worsened and that his health was continuing to deteriorate. The court dismissed the appeal on the same day, which upon further appeal was upheld by the Varna Court of Appeals on 20 March 2000. The courts considered that the applicant's assertions did not introduce any new facts or circumstances warranting a reassessment of the grounds of his detention. In addition, they considered that the applicant's detention was mandatory as he was charged with a serious intentional offence, that in such cases there was a statutory presumption that he might abscond or re-offend and that the applicant had failed to present sufficient evidence to the contrary. 21.  In his next appeal, dated 26 April 2000 but filed on 2 May 2000, the applicant claimed that the courts had previously failed to examine specific evidence that he might abscond or re-offend in order to justify his continued detention. He claimed that they had simply relied on the nature of the offence with which he was charged with and had considered that detention was mandatory in such cases. The Varna Regional Court did not immediately examine the applicant's appeal, so on 29 May 2000 the applicant petitioned the President of the Varna Regional Court to remove the presiding judge in his case, because she was allegedly delaying the proceedings and had dismissed his appeals against his detention without citing specific evidence in support of her decisions. 22.  Both requests of the applicant were examined and dismissed by the trial court, in camera, on 30 May 2000. The Varna Regional Court considered that the applicant had once again failed to present any new evidence or to indicate new circumstances warranting a reassessment of the grounds for his detention. At a hearing on 15 June 2000 the applicant's counsel reiterated his appeal against his detention citing the previous grounds for his request. The Varna Regional Court dismissed the appeal on the same day as it considered that the applicant's assertions did not constitute new facts warranting a reassessment of the grounds for his detention. The applicant appealed against both decisions on 16 June 2000, but on 26 June 2000 the Varna Court of Appeals upheld the decisions of the lower court on similar grounds. 23.  On 23 October 2000 the applicant filed his last appeal against his detention. He claimed that the length of the detention itself, which at that time was over nineteen months, was in contravention with the aims and purposes of the measure to detain a defendant on remand. He claimed that there was no longer evidence that he might abscond, re-offend or hinder the investigation and objected to the courts' reliance on the seriousness of the offence as the primary ground for refusing his appeals against his detention. The Varna Regional Court ruled on this appeal after having delivered its judgment at the hearing on 28 November 2000. According to the minutes of the hearing, it confirmed the applicant's detention on remand on the basis of the gravity of the perpetrated offence, the applicant's conduct and the severity of the imposed sentence.