4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is presently detained in the Lublin Detention Centre. 5.  On 17 July 2001 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery acting in an organised criminal group. The court also considered that the measure was justified by the severity of the penalty that could be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 6.  Subsequently, the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions. 7.  On 5 September 2002 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal, upon the prosecutor’s request, decided to prolong the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the earlier grounds, on the complexity of the case. 8.  On 21 December 2002, the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. The bill of indictment was directed against 22 co‑accused. 9.  On 30 December 2002 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the strong probability that the applicant and 13 co-accused had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the sentence that could be imposed. The court further submitted that only detention would secure the applicant’s appearance at the trial. 10.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postepowania karnego) to the Wroclaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking that the applicant’s detention be prolonged beyond the statutory time-limit of two years. 11.  On 21 May 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal granted that application and prolonged the detention of the applicant until 27 November 2003. The Court justified its decision with reference to the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences and the complexity of the case which concerned an organised criminal group and involved several co‑accused. 12.  At the hearing held by the Opole Regional Court on 22 October 2003 the applicant’s application for release was dismissed. 13.  On 26 November 2003 the Court of Appeal, upon another application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 22 January 2004. It reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. The court also considered that, given the severity of the penalty that might be expected, the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. 14.  That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 January 2004. 15.  On 16 January 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court stressed that, due to the complex nature of the case, the applicant should be kept in custody since the grounds previously given for his detention were still valid. 16.  That decision was upheld on appeal on 10 February 2004. The Court of Appeal noted that the exemplary behaviour of the applicant during the proceedings ‑ the fact that he had confessed and had been clarifying important details concerning the alleged crimes - would justify releasing him from detention. Nevertheless, the court found that there were “pragmatic” reasons for keeping him in detention, since he had been simultaneously detained by the Lublin Regional Court in connection with another set of criminal proceedings. If released, the applicant would have been transferred to a detention centre in Lublin, which, in the Court’s view, would make it impossible to complete the trial. 17.  On 8 April 2004 the Regional Court made yet another application asking the Court of Appeal to prolong the applicant’s detention. On 16 April 2004 the court granted that application, finding that the grounds given previously were still valid. The court particularly referred to the complexity of the case, the type of offences at issue and the severity of the anticipated penalty. 18.  The applicant’s numerous applications for release and his appeals against the decisions prolonging detention were to no avail. 19.  In total, the trial court held 43 hearings during which it heard 86 witnesses and the depositions of 130 other witnesses were read at the hearings. On 21 July 2004 the Opole Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 3 ½ years’ imprisonment. On the same date the court decided to place the applicant under police supervision finding that, given his low sentence, there were no grounds for prolonging the applicant’s detention. 20.  On 21 November 2002 the Strzelce Opolskie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a robbery, the severity of the penalty which could be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 21.  Subsequently, the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions. 22.  On 13 February 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges brought against 8 co-accused. 23.  On 18 February and 14 October 2003 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds originally given for keeping him in custody were still valid. The court further decided to examine the applicant’s case separately due to the fact that the applicant was being simultaneously tried before the Opole Regional Court. 24.  On 27 January and 6 April 2004 the Lublin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court gave identical grounds for continuing the applicant’s detention and dismissed his application for release for personal reasons. 25.  It appears that the trial started on 6 October 2004. 26.  The trial court held in total 7 hearings and on 30 May 2005 it gave judgment. The applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.