5.  The applicant was born in born in 1972 and lives in Zielona Góra, Poland. 6.  On 28 March 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 29 March 2000 he was charged with fraud. 7.  On 30 March 2000 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in detention. The court referred to the fact that the applicant was charged with a crime which carried a heavy sentence. It also considered that the applicant could go into hiding and that he might try to avoid the trial. 8.  On 27 April 2000 the applicant applied for release from detention. On 4 May 2000 the Wrocław District Prosecutor rejected his application. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant's co-accused was still in hiding. He also considered that the applicant's case did not disclose any of the grounds for release from detention listed in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on 19 May 2000 by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. 9.  On 28 June 2000 the Wrocław District Court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention until 29 September 2000. The court considered that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against the applicant. It was necessary to collect several pieces of evidence and the charges laid against the applicant carried a heavy sentence. The court was also of the view that the applicant would interfere with the criminal proceedings against him. 10.  On 28 September 2000 the Wrocław District Court prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention until 29 December 2000. The court repeated the reasons given in its decision of 28 June 2000. 11.  On 20 October 2000 the applicant made an application for release to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. He requested that his detention be replaced by police supervision and by a court order requiring him to remain in Poland. 12.  On 23 October 2000 the Regional Prosecutor dismissed the application for release. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant was a habitual offender and that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against him. 13.  On 28 December 2000 the Wrocław District Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 29 March 2001. The court repeated the reasons given in its decision of 28 June 2000. 14.  On 2 February 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 December 2000. 15.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Wrocław District Court. The bill of indictment against the applicant and one co‑accused concerned several counts of fraud to the detriment of several companies allegedly committed by them while running a company owned by the applicant. 16.  On 28 March 2001 the Wrocław District Court prolonged the applicant's pre‑trial detention until 29 June 2001. The court repeated the reasons given in its decision of 28 June 2000 and added that the applicant would remain in detention in order to “secure the proper conduct of the proceedings”. 17.  At the hearing held on 12 September 2001 the trial court further prolonged the applicant's detention justifying it by reference to the gravity of the charges and the need to secure the proper conduct of proceedings. At the next hearing held on 15 November 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to some of the charges against him. 18.  On 19 December 2001 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged. The court considered that the reasons for keeping him in detention were still valid. 19.  Subsequently the trial court scheduled several hearings which were adjourned as the witnesses failed to appear. 20.  On 13 March 2002 the Wrocław District Court made a request under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) in which it asked that the applicant's detention be prolonged until 28 September 2002. 21.  On 21 March 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the District Court's request but decided to extend the applicant's detention only until 28 July 2002. The appellate court agreed with the District Court that the need to take evidence from nineteen witnesses could justify the extension of the applicant's detention. At the same time, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the proceedings before the trial court were slow‑moving and that the conduct of the proceedings by the trial court “did not contribute to their termination within the proper time”. In this connection, the appellate court noted that only nine hearings had taken place within the first year of the proceedings and that the proceedings had begun in fact on 15 November 2001. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal observed that already in December 2001 and January 2002 some of the witnesses had informed the trial court that they could not attend hearings before it and had asked that they be heard by other courts at the request of the Wrocław District Court. The delay in taking a decision concerning these requests was difficult to understand. Finally, the Wrocław Court of Appeal stated that the applicant's detention would be extended only until 28 July 2002 because a period of four months should be sufficient to allow the trial court to conclude the proceedings. 22.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 21 March 2002 but his appeal was dismissed on 11 April 2002. 23.  The trial court held hearings on 17 April and 8 May 2002. On 22 May 2002 the trial court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. 24.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. 25.  On 26 February 2003 the Wrocław Regional Court gave judgment in which it partly amended the trial court's judgment.