4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Rumia. The application was lodged on his behalf by his common-law wife, Ms Teresa Rohde, who submitted a duly signed written authorisation from the applicant. 5.  On 6 September 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On 7 September 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a number of armed robberies in an organised criminal group. It held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by, inter alia, inducing witnesses to give false testimony and relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Consequently, it found that remanding the applicant in custody was the only preventive measure which could secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 6.  On 18 November 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 6 March 2000. It relied on the reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed the offences in question and the need to take further investigative measures. 7.  On 16 February 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 30 June 2000. It held that his continued detention was justified by the serious nature and the scale of the offences in question. Furthermore, it had regard to the need to obtain evidence from many sources. 8.  On 20 June 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 6 September 2000. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it observed that the applicant's detention was justified by the complexity of the investigation and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed. 9.  On 17 August 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2000. It found that the strong suspicion against the applicant of having committed the serious offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to obtain further evidence warranted holding him in custody. 10.  Meanwhile, several other persons were charged and detained in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. 11.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2001. It reiterated the original grounds given for his detention. Taking into account the nature of the offences, the Court of Appeal added that the fact that the charges against all nine suspects were closely interrelated gave substance to the risk that, once released, they might obstruct the proceedings. It also referred to the particular complexity of the case. Furthermore, it noted that the prolongation of the investigation was due to the fact that new suspects had been identified in the course of the investigation. 12.  On 7 March 2001 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's and his 9 co-suspects' detention until 31 May 2001. It held that the original grounds given for the applicant's detention were still valid and that the need to obtain DNA evidence justified the continuation of that measure. 13.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 118 charges brought against 19 defendants, who all were detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. 14.  On 17 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained until 6 September 2001, finding that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him and other co-defendants from evading justice or tampering with evidence. It also referred to the complexity of the case stemming from the number of defendants and witnesses to be heard. 15.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution had still not been concluded. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month. 16.  On 15 January 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for the presiding judge to withdraw. On 15 January 2003 the applicant and 17 of his co-defendants unsuccessfully challenged the judges and lay members of the trial court. 17.  Since on 6 September 2001 the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of his detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were given on 22 August 2001 (prolonging his detention until 31 March 2002), 28 March 2002 (extending his detention up to 30 September 2002), 11 September 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 31 December 2002), 18 December 2002 (prolonging that period until 30 June 2003), 25 June 2003 (extending his detention up to 31 December 2003), 17 December 2003 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2004), 23 June 2004 (prolonging his detention until 31 December 2004), 15 December 2004 (prolonging his detention until 31 March 2005), 30 March 2005 (extending that period until 30 June 2005) and 22 June 2005 (prolonging his detention until 30 October 2005). 18.  In all those decisions the Court of Appeal considered that the original grounds given for the applicant's detention were still valid. It stressed that the applicant's detention was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings in such a particularly complex case, given the nature of the charges, the number of the defendants and the connections between them. In addition, it referred to the volume of evidence to be heard. 19.  In its decision of 19 September 2001 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 22 August 2001, prolonging his detention. It held, inter alia, that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone constituted a sufficient ground for the applicant's detention as he had been charged with an offence which attracted a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years' imprisonment. It further found that the applicant's continued detention was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the trial, given the fact that he had been charged with the commission of the offences in an organised criminal group. 20.  In its decision of 25 June 2003 prolonging the applicant's detention, the Court of Appeal observed that the trial could not be terminated due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who had filed numerous requests challenging the trial court. It further considered that although the applicant and other defendants were free to make use of their procedural rights, the abuse of those rights had undoubtedly led to delays in the trial. It also noted that the trial court had taken various procedural steps in order to accelerate the proceedings. 21.  In its decision on the applicant's detention of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for the delays during the trial was the obstructiveness of the defendants and the abuse of the rights of the defence. It also observed that the trial could be concluded by the end of 2004 provided that the Regional Court endeavoured to organise the trial efficiently. 22.  In its decision of 18 January 2005 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 December 2004 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings. It added that the risk of absconding or interfering with witnesses which existed in the present case did not have to be supported by any concrete facts, but resulted from the above presumption[1]. 23.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention. In its decision of 28 August 2002 dismissing the applicant's application for release, the trial court found that according to evidence given by a witness R.G., the applicant had attempted to induce him to give false testimony. 24.  On 21 March 2005 the trial court made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter four defendants (J.N., G.P., Z.S. and Z.C.), who in the meantime had been released from detention, were to be tried separately. 25.  After 20 June 2005 no hearing was held due to the serious illness of the judge rapporteur. On 21 September 2005 the President of the Criminal Section IV of the Gdańsk Regional Court assigned a new judge rapporteur. Consequently, the trial had to commence de novo. 26.  On 20 September 2005 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 January 2006. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 18 October 2005 a different panel of the Court of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and ordered the applicant's release under police supervision. It also imposed on him a prohibition on leaving the country. The Court of Appeal had regard to the fact that the trial had to commence de novo and that the applicant had already spent a few years in pre-trial detention. 27.  The applicant was released on 19 October 2005. 28.  On 24 November 2005 the trial court made a further severance order and split the case into eleven separate cases. 29.  By March 2006 the trial court had held some 135 hearings of the 162 which had been scheduled. It heard more than 400 witnesses. 30.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. 31.  On 25 January 2005 the applicant filed with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and asked for compensation. He relied on section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”). 32.  The applicant submitted that the charges against all the defendants had been unjustifiably joined in one set of proceedings. He further referred to numerous absences of witnesses, lawyers and defendants and claimed that many hearings had been cancelled in the course of 2004. 33.  On 1 March 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint as unfounded, having regard to the criteria set out in section 2 § 2 of the 2004 Act, namely the conduct of the court and of the parties, the nature of the case, its factual and legal complexity and what was at stake in the proceedings for the complainant. It held that the joint examination of the charges against the defendants who had collectively committed a crime was justified under the domestic law. The Court of Appeal also found that certain absences referred to by the applicant had been justified, while in other cases the trial court had taken measures to discipline the relevant persons. It further held that certain hearings in 2004 had been cancelled, but for reasons which had not been attributable to the trial court. 34.  In conclusion, having regard to the nature of the case, its complexity and the conduct of the parties, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court could not be held responsible for the delays in the proceedings.