5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Szczecin. 6.  The applicant was arrested on 17 June 1999. 7.  On 18 June 1999 the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained until 17 September 1999 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had assaulted a police officer and committed robbery. The court also referred to the risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation. 8.  The applicant appealed. 9.  On 14 December 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the challenged decision. 10.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Szczecin Regional Court. Appeals by the applicant against those decisions were unsuccessful. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on their serious nature. 11.  On 5 April 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. 12.  The applicant appealed against the first‑instance judgment. 13.  On 29 June 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. 14.  On 11 September 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court again gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The court did not deduct the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, finding that at the time of detention he was serving prison sentences imposed in other sets of proceedings. 15.  The prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer lodged appeals. 16.  On 28 January 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment. 17.  The applicant requested the Minister of Justice to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. 18.  On 8 January 2003 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that he had found no grounds for lodging a cassation appeal. 19.  During his detention, the applicant requested several times to be allowed to maintain personal contact with his family. He has not specified which members of his family he meant. Nor is it clear from the courts’ decisions refusing the contacts. 20.  On 9 December 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court informed the applicant’s father that a letter from the applicant had been opened and seized “on account of its content”. 21.  The applicant has produced six decisions given by the Szczecin Regional Court on the following dates: 18 February, 4 October and 14 December 2000, and 10 January and 3 July 2001. All these decisions refer to “the applicant’s family” without specifying any particular person. They comprise very brief reasoning and refuse the applicant personal contact with his family “in view of a suspicion that the family would obstruct the proceedings”, without further explanation. 22.  On 18 February 2000 the applicant’s parents informed the Szczecin Regional Court that they had not seen their son for eight months and requested the court to give reasons for the refusal to allow them to visit him. 23.  From a handwritten note on the letter from the applicant’s parents it emerges that they were informed on the same day that the refusal was justified by the fear that they would obstruct the proceedings. 24.  From the Visiting Records (Karta Ewidencji Widzeń) produced by the Government it emerges that at the initial stage of proceedings the applicant’s parents visited him once, in April 2000. Further visits were not allowed. 25.  On 10 December 2000 the applicant requested the Szczecin Regional Court to allow him to receive a visit from his family during the Christmas season. 26.  On 14 December 2000 he was informed that the visits had been stopped due to a fear that the applicant’s family would obstruct the proceedings. 27.  On an unspecified date in January 2001 the applicant again requested the court for permission to resume visits with his family. 28.  At a hearing on 10 January 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court refused the applicant’s request, giving the same reasons. 29.  On 11 January 2001 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision. She pointed to the fact that allowing visits in the way they had been granted at the beginning of the applicant’s detention (through a glass door and under the supervision of the prison staff) did not constitute any danger to the proper course of the proceedings. 30.  On 15 January 2001 the President of the Criminal Division of the Szczecin Regional Court (Przewodniczący Wydziału Karnego) refused to hear the appeal finding that it was inadmissible in law. 31.  Between December 1999 and April 2000 as well as between 3 September 2000 and 16 September 2001 the applicant’s family was not allowed to visit him in prison. 32.  It appears that after 16 September 2001 the applicant’s family was allowed to resume visits and that after that date visits were held at regular intervals, once or twice a month on average. 33.  The applicant also submitted that he had not been allowed to make telephone calls while detained and that the refusal of contacts had included visits in the presence of a prison officer.