4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Poznań. 5.  The applicant was charged with forgery of the wills of several persons in order to inherit from them, acting in co-operation with others. On 18 January 2001 he was detained on remand. 6.  On 23 April 2004 the Szamotuły District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 8 year's imprisonment. 7.  On 15 January 2005 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court on the ground of serious procedural shortcomings. The proceedings are pending. Apparently the applicant was released pending trial. 8.  The applicant produced photocopies of several envelopes containing letters sent to him during his detention on remand (no sender was indicated on the photocopies submitted). The envelopes bear a stamp “censored on” (ocenzurowano dnia...), a handwritten date and an illegible signature:
1) the envelope marked “censored on 25 April 2002”;
2) the envelope marked “censored on 26 April 2002”, bearing also a stamp of the Szamotuły District Court Criminal Division;
3) the envelope marked “censored on 14 May 2002”;
4) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 27 May 2002, marked “censored on 14 June 2002”;.
5) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 14 June 2002, marked “censored on 21 June 2002”;
6) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 25 October 2002, “censored” on 4 December 2002;
7) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 2 December 2002, marked “censored on 23 December 2002”;
8) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 20 December 2002, “censored” on 3 January 2003;
9) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 7 February 2003, marked “censored on 12 February 2003”;
10) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 15 February 2003, marked “censored on 28 February 2003”;
11) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 4 March 2003, marked “censored on 11 March 2003”;
12) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 18 March 2003, marked “censored on 24 March 2003”;
13) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 23 June 2003, marked “censored on 27 June 2003”;
14) the envelope marked “censored on 8 July 2003”;
15) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 31 July 2003, marked “censored on 5 August 2003”;
16) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 4 August 2003, marked “censored on 8 August 2003”;
17) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 24 September 2003, marked “censored on 6 October 2003”;
18) the envelope marked “censored on 30 October 2003”;
19) the envelope marked “censored on 23 December 2003”;
20) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 12 February 2004, marked “censored on 16 February 2004”;
21) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored on 16 February 2004”;
22) another envelope with an illegible post office stamp, marked “censored on 16 February 2004”;
23) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 23 February 2004, “censored on 26 February 2004”;
24) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 10 March 2004, “censored on 18 March 2004”;
25) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 16 March 2004, marked “censored on 24 March 2004”;
26) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 26 March 2004, marked “censored on 5 April 2004”;
27) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 1 April 2004, marked “censored on 6 April 2004”;
28) the envelope marked “censored on 28 April 2004”; 9.  The following envelopes containing letters from the applicant's lawyer bear a stamp “censored on” (ocenzurowano dnia...), a handwritten date and an illegible signature:
1) the envelope marked “censored on 8 April 2002”;
2) the envelope marked “censored on 25 April 2002”. 10.  The letter sent to the applicant by the Poznań Fiscal Inspection Office (Urząd Kontroli Skarbowej) bears a stamp “censored on”, a handwritten date “21 March 2003” and an illegible signature. It also bears a stamp of the Szamotuły Detention Centre. 11.  The letter sent to the applicant by the Information Office of the Council of Europe and also bearing a stamp of the University of Warsaw bears a stamp “censored on”, a handwritten date “18 February 2003” and an illegible signature. 12.  The applicant also submitted several copies of his letters sent during 2003 to the Fiscal Inspection Office and the Poznań Court of Appeal, bearing similar “censored on” stamps. 13.  The applicant submitted that he possessed a number of other letters which had been censored in a similar way. 14.  The applicant informed the authorities about the alleged censorship of his correspondence, complaining that his correspondence had not been censored by a judge, but by a secretary of the court. 15.  On 22 November 2004 the President of the Poznań Regional Court informed the applicant in writing that although the envelopes had been signed by a secretary, the correspondence had been censored by judges. He also informed the applicant that the practice of having a “censored” stamp signed by a secretary had been discontinued. 16.  On 9 January 2006 the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against D.K. (the secretary, who had signed the envelopes), alleging censorship of his correspondence by an unauthorised person. 17.  On 14 March 2006 the Szamotuły District Prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against D.K. finding that no offence had been committed as D.K. had only confirmed with her signature that the censorship had been carried out by a judge. The applicant appealed. 18.  On 24 July 2006 the Szamotuły District Court upheld the decision of 14 March 2006.