5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Berlin. He is currently detained in the Sztum Remand Centre. 6.  On 16 September 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) issued a European Arrest Warrant against the applicant. He was suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group, taking hostages and depriving a third person of his liberty. 7.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant was arrested in Berlin. 8.  On 3 December 2004 the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) ordered that the applicant be extradited to Poland. 9.  On 13 December 2004 the applicant crossed the German-Polish border and was transported to the Gdańsk Detention Centre. 10.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended, by several decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). In their decisions the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, on their serious nature and on the risk that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings. 11.  Appeals by the applicant against the decisions to extend his detention were unsuccessful. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed them on 12 July 2006 and 10 January 2007 respectively. 12.  On 14 June 2006 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with six offences, including setting up and leading an organised criminal group, aiding and abetting kidnap for ransom, kidnapping two persons and depriving them of liberty in a particularly cruel manner. The bill of indictment comprised forty-four charges against twenty defendants. 13.  At a hearing held on 21 December 2006 the proceedings were severed and they were continued in respect of the applicant and another co‑accused. 14.  On 6 June 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 12 December 2007. It relied on the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and stressed that their serious nature constituted sufficient grounds to assume that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. In the court’s view, the risk of obstruction did not have to be confirmed by any particular behaviour of the applicant. The court also held that the extension of the pre-trial detention for a period exceeding two years was justified by “the particularly complicated circumstances of the case” and “the need to carry on the investigation”. 15.  On 4 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months, until 12 March 2008. The court reiterated the reasons given on the previous occasions and, relying on the fact that a European Arrest Warrant had been issued against the applicant, added that there had been a serious risk that the applicant might abscond. The court examined the course of the trial and found that the reason the proceedings had not been terminated was the high complexity of the case, and that the Regional Court had conducted the proceedings with no delays. 16.  The applicant appealed and, on 9 January 2008, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision, holding that the anticipated severe sentence had at that time been of secondary importance and that the main reason justifying keeping the applicant in detention was the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and tamper with evidence. 17.  On 5 March 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention until 12 June 2008. The court relied on the same reasons as on previous occasions. Following the applicant’s appeal, on 29 April 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision. 18.  The applicant remains in detention and the proceedings are pending before the first-instance court. 19.  On 28 October 2005 the applicant requested the Kwidzyń District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) to initiate criminal proceedings against police officers. The applicant asserted that he had been ill-treated and insulted in the Sztum Remand Centre. 20.  On 21 December 2005 the Kwidzyń District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, finding that no offence had been committed. 21.  The applicant did not appeal against that decision.