5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Gdynia. He is a naval officer. 6.  The applicant was arrested on 1 July 2001. By a decision of 2 July 2002 the Poznań District Military Court (Sąd Garnizonowy w Poznaniu) remanded the applicant in custody for three months on suspicion of accepting bribes in connection with his professional activities and heading an organised criminal group (case no. So 4/05). The decision was stated to be justified by the strong evidence against the applicant, the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and by the severity of the penalty which could be imposed on him. 7.  On 25 July 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) appointed two experts with a view to establishing whether the applicant could be held criminally liable. Subsequently, on 14 August 2002 that court lifted the detention order and ordered the applicant’s release on health grounds, as he had been diagnosed as suffering from severe depression and was considered likely to attempt to commit suicide if incarcerated. The court suspended the applicant from duty. 8.  On 7 March 2005 the indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Poznań Regional Military Court. Hearings in the case were subsequently held on 27 April, on 23 and 24 August, on 6 and 7 December 2005 and on 10 and 11 January 2006. On 23 August 2005 the court remanded one of the applicant’s co‑accused in custody. 9.  On 21 August 2007 the president of the bench examining the applicant’s case requested that he should be allowed to recuse himself from the proceedings. By a decision of the Poznan Regional Military Court dated 22 August 2007 his recusal was accepted. The court noted that that judge was sitting on the bench dealing with another case against the applicant in which the prosecution had submitted the same evidence in support of separate charges (No. So 9/06). 10.  On 10 September 2007 the applicant’s case was joined with another case against him pending at that time. The new case was registered as No. So 4/05. 11.  On 5 February 2006 the applicant was arrested in connection with the second case against him. He was charged with the offences punishable under Article 258 § 3 (leadership of an organised criminal gang), Article 228 § 1 (receiving bribes) and Article 228 § 3 (bribery) of the Criminal Code. 12.  An expert opinion dated 6 February 2006 concluded that the applicant’s remand in custody was compatible with his health and that he was able to take part in the proceedings. On the same date the Poznań Regional Military Court remanded him in custody on suspicion of heading an organised criminal gang and having committed multiple counts of fraud, embezzlement, uttering threats and accepting bribes. The case was registered under case number So 20/06. The reasons given for the decision to detain the applicant were the strong evidence against him, the severity of the penalty which could be imposed and the risk that he would attempt to induce the witnesses to give false testimony or to otherwise obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a great number of alleged accomplices. The applicant challenged this decision. His appeal was dismissed on 8 March 2006. On 25 April 2006 the Poznań Regional Military Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. The court referred to concrete pieces of evidence which, in the court’s view, supported the suspicion against the applicant, including the testimonies given by numerous other suspects, both those who had acknowledged their involvement in the fraud scheme and those who continued to deny it. It further noted that the case was very complex as it concerned many charges brought against numerous suspects. In noted that in the light of the evidence gathered up till that moment it was likely that new circumstances concerning the alleged fraud scheme, and in particular the applicant’s alleged role in it, would come to light. 13.  On 20 July 2006 a new indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Poznań Regional Military Court. On 27 July 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention for three months. The court referred to numerous pieces of evidence which pointed to his likely involvement in the fraud scheme. It noted that it was likely, in the light of that evidence, that he had played a leading role therein. It was necessary to maintain his detention in order to prevent him from exerting pressure on his co-accused and also on other persons who had not been covered by the bill of indictment but who could also have participated in the scheme. On 23 August 2006 hearings were scheduled for 27 and 28 September 2006. On 27 September 2006 the case against the applicant and his accomplices (no. So 20/06) was divided into two separate cases. A judgment in the case against his accomplices (no. So 20/06) was given on the same date. All the accused pleaded guilty. The court scheduled hearings in the applicant’s case (no. So 34/06) for 20 and 21 November 2006. 14.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended by numerous decisions, all of which were upheld on appeal. In the decision of 19 October 2006 the justification given for the extension was the strong evidence against him, the fact that he ran the risk of receiving a severe sentence and that he presented a risk of attempting to induce the witnesses to give false testimonies or to otherwise obstruct the course of the proceedings. 15.  Subsequent hearings were held on 20 and 21 November 2006 and on 2 January 2007. On 2 January 2007 the court extended the applicant’s detention, referring to the same grounds as in its decision of 19 October 2006 (see paragraph 14 above). 16.  On 13 February 2007 the Poznan Regional Military Court convicted the applicant of a number of offences and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The period of time spent in pre-trial detention from 5 February 2006 until 13 February 2007 was counted towards the sentence. The court extended his detention on that date and again later on 10 April 2007, as under the provisions of Polish law detention after a sentencing judgment of a first-instance court was still regarded as pre‑trial detention. 17.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court’s Military Chamber quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. On 17 July 2007 the applicant’s detention was extended again. The court first noted that the grounds on which the decision to keep him in detention had been taken, had not ceased to apply. It further observed that, if released, the applicant could exert pressure on witnesses who had given testimony against him. The court listed the names of these witnesses. It was further of the view that the alleged principal role of the applicant in the organisation and running of the criminal group was also relevant for the purposes of the decision to maintain him in detention; the more so as it was likely that a severe sentence would be imposed on him. On 10 September 2007 both cases against the applicant (nos. So 4/05 and So 31/07) were joined to be examined as case no. So 4/05. 18.  Subsequent hearings were held on 23 October, 22 and 27 November and 6 December 2007. On 4 January 2008 the applicant applied for release. He referred, inter alia, to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and submitted that his detention had exceeded a reasonable time. As the court considered that the applicant should be released on bail, on 8 January 2008 the applicant was obliged to state his position concerning the mortgage which had been submitted to secure his bail. At a court session held on 9 January 2008 the applicant’s wife agreed that her and her husband’s property would serve as security. The court fixed a deadline for arranging bail for 21 January 2008. As the relevant formalities had not been complied with by that date, on 4 February 2008 the applicant’s pre‑trial detention was extended once more. On the same date the court dismissed a request for release submitted to it by the applicant on 31 January 2008. The applicant appealed. On 27 February 2008 the Supreme Court amended the contested decision and ordered that the applicant be released on bail. As the applicant failed to deposit the required amount within the indicated time-limit, on 30 April 2008 his pre‑trial detention was again extended. The applicant appealed on 5 May 2008. 19.  On 19 May 2008 the Supreme Court decided to release the applicant and to place him under police supervision with a prohibition on leaving the country. The release order was given by the Supreme Court on 19 May 2008 at an unspecified time. It was sent to the prison by post as a priority letter on the same date. 20.  The applicant was released on 21 May 2008.