5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and is currently detained in Zamość Remand Centre. 6.  On 15 October 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed a number of offences connected with handling drugs and psychoactive substances in an organised criminal group. 7.  On 17 October 2010 the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody for three months. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the reasonable risk that he would obstruct the proceedings, because the offences had been committed in an organised group. The court did not share the prosecutor’s view according to which there had been a reasonable fear that the applicant might abscond or go into hiding. The court found no reasons to hold so. 8.  The applicant’s detention on remand was extended by the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 13 January, on 11 April and on 11 July 2011. In these decisions, in order to justify the extension of the detention, the court repeated the previous reasons relied on. In the decision of 11 April 2011 the court further noted that, taking into consideration the number of offences that the applicant had been suspected of, further detention was additionally justified by a heavy penalty that might be imposed on the applicant if convicted. 9.  Subsequently, on 6 October 2011, the detention was extended by the Rzeszów Court of Appeal until 30 November 2011. The court relied on the same grounds as previously and additionally noted that the applicant’s case was particularly complicated which justified extension of the detention beyond the statutory time-limit of 12 months. 10.  On 7 November 2011 a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other co-accused was lodged with the Zamość Regional Court. 11.  On 23 November 2011 the Zamość Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for further three months, until 29 February 2012. No new grounds were relied on. 12.  Further extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by the Lublin Court of Appeal on 30 May 2012. The Regional Court had requested a three-month extension. The court granted the prosecutor’s request only in part for two further months that is until 4 August 2012 and found that since the trial court had scheduled hearings only until the end of June 2012, the detention could not be extended until September. The court further considered that the time-limit until 4 August 2012 should be sufficient to complete the proceedings before the first-instance court. 13.  On 1 August 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal again granted the Regional Court’s request only in part and extended the applicant’s detention for two further months and not for three months as requested by the Regional Court. The court relied again on the same grounds, analysed the course of the proceedings and considered that the time-limit until 4 October 2012 should be sufficient to complete the proceedings. The court also justified the extraordinary extension of the detention by the complexity of the case resulting, among other things, from the nature of evidence; there were anonymous witnesses to be heard and part of the evidence constituted material classified as confidential. 14.  On 27 September 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal, relying on the same grounds as previously, extended the applicant’s detention until 4 January 2013. The court additionally noted that large part of evidence in the trial constituted the accused’s’ conversations recorded confidentially as a result of their confidential control. The accused as well as their counsels had demanded that the recordings be heard in extenso at the hearing which influenced the duration of the proceedings. 15.  On 28 December 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 2 April 2013. The court relied on the same grounds as previously, analysed the course of the proceedings and found no undue delays but noted that the detention had already lasted considerable time and that the trial court should intensify its activities to complete the trial until the expiry of the time-limit of the extended detention. 16.  On 27 March 2013 the Lublin Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention until 4 July 2013 finding that although the trial court had regularly scheduled hearings, some objective obstacles did not allow it to complete the proceedings. 17.  On 26 June 2013 the Lublin Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention until 4 October 2013; the extraordinary extension was again justified by the complexity of the case. 18.  On 2 October 2013 the Lublin Court of Appeal, relying on the same grounds as previously, again extended the applicant’s detention until 7 December 2013. 19.  The applicant appealed against this decision. 20.  On 5 November 2013 the Lublin Court of Appeal amended the challenged decision and held that the applicant could be released upon payment of bail in the amount of 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), (approximately 12,000 euros (EUR)). The court found that this preventive measure would be capable of securing the proper conduct of the proceedings, it failed however to explain in details the reasons behind this decision. It only noted that the bail should not only be dependent on the financial possibilities of the person interested but also secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. Since this decision was given in a result of an appeal, no further appeal was available to the applicant. 21.  On 4 December 2013 the Lublin Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 7 February 2014. 22.  On 14 January 2014 the Zamość Regional Court gave judgment and convicted all six members of the group. The applicant was found guilty of leading an organised criminal group smuggling marihuana from the Netherlands to Poland and organising sale of marihuana and ecstasy pills on the territory of Poland. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and a fine. 23.  Following the applicant’s appeal, the criminal proceedings against him are currently pending before the second-instance court. The applicant remains in detention. 24.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 17 October 2010 imposing the pre-trial detention on him as well as against all decisions extending his detention. 25.  In their decisions upholding the extensions the courts relied on the original grounds for the applicant’s detention. The courts emphasised the need to apprehend other members of the criminal group and to obtain additional evidence supporting the case against the applicant. In the courts’ view, the applicant, if released, would try to obstruct the proceedings by passing vital information about the preliminary proceedings onto the other members of the criminal group and by influencing witnesses. The courts concluded that in the context of the applicant’s case, which concerned organised crime, detention on remand remained the only security measure capable of guaranteeing the proper conduct of the proceedings.