4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Wrocław. 5.  The applicant was arrested on 25 March 2003. On 27 March 2003 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court ordered his detention on remand on suspicion of theft and burglary. It observed that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by exerting pressure on witnesses or tampering with other evidence. The court also invoked the severity of the anticipated penalty. 6.  On 23 April 2003 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor ordered the seizure of the applicant's car with a view to securing the payment of any fine which might be imposed on him. It appears that the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. However, he has provided no further information about its outcome. 7.  On 17 June 2003 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 25 September 2003, relying on the same grounds as given in its original decision. 8.  On 18 September 2003 the District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 25 December 2003. It invoked the risk that he would obstruct the investigation, having regard to the fact that the alleged offences had been committed jointly with other persons. It also noted that certain evidence and a psychiatric report concerning the applicant had not yet been obtained. 9.  On 28 November 2003 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court. The applicant was charged with 8 counts of theft and burglary. The bill of indictment specified that the applicant was subject to the rules on recidivism in view of his previous convictions. 10.  On 18 December 2003 the District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 24 March 2004, invoking the same grounds as previously. The applicant appealed. On 17 February 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal. It observed that under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the severity of the anticipated penalty could alone constitute a sufficient basis for the applicant's continued detention. On the other hand it agreed with the applicant's argument that the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings had not been substantiated by any concrete arguments. 11.  On 23 February 2004 the bill of indictment was transmitted to the Warsaw District Court which, following an administrative reform, had become competent to hear the case. 12.  On 11 March 2004 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 June 2004. It found that the anticipated heavy sentence was related to the number of charges and the fact that the applicant was a recidivist offender. It further noted that the prolongation of his detention was justified by administrative restrictions on the number of detained defendants who could be brought to court at any given time. 13.  The trial started on 14 June 2004. On the same date the District Court ordered the applicant's continued detention until 30 September 2004. 14.  On 26 August 2004 the District Court refused the applicant's request for release. It further extended his detention until 30 December 2004. Having regard to the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence (cf. Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the court found that his continued detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 19 October 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the decision. It relied on the fact that the applicant had partly confessed. Further, it had regard to the number of charges against the applicant and to the fact that he was a recidivist offender. 15.  The second hearing was held on 3 November 2004. 16.  On 26 November 2004 and 21 February 2005 the District Court refused the applicant's requests for release. 17.  On 13 December 2004 the trial court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 28 February 2005, reiterating the grounds previously given. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. 18.  On 11 January 2005 the trial court had to adjourn the hearing due to the illness of a lay judge. On 14 February 2005 the Head of the VIII Criminal Division of the District Court ordered that the trial had to be restarted since the composition of the trial court had changed. 19.  On 24 February 2005 the District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 25 March 2005. It held that the reasons previously given for his detention remained valid. In addition, it found that there was a risk that the applicant would exert pressure on witnesses or obstruct the proceedings by other unlawful means. Thus, the District Court held that other, non-custodial, measures would not be sufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 20.  Since on 25 March 2005 the applicant's detention would have reached the statutory 2 years' time-limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of his detention had to be ordered by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. On 24 February 2005 the District Court applied to the Court of Appeal for prolongation of the applicant's detention until 25 August 2005. It referred to administrative restrictions affecting the possibility of bringing detained defendants to trial. 21.  On 11 March 2005 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 25 August 2005. It held that there was a risk that he would obstruct the proceedings, given the nature of the charges and the severity of the likely sentence. It also found that the prolongation of the applicant's detention beyond the statutory time-limit was justified under Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal procedure on account of obstacles beyond the trial court's control. That decision was upheld on appeal on 29 April 2005. 22.  The trial court held hearings on 5, 13 May, 30 June and 13 July 2005. The frequency of the hearings depended on the administrative restrictions on the number of detained accused who could be brought to court at any given time on account of the lack of police resources. 23.  On 21 July 2005 the trial court refused the applicant's request for release. It noted, inter alia, that the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings was still valid despite the fact that most witnesses had already been heard. A similar request was refused on 2 November 2005. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the latter decision. 24.  On 23 August 2005 the applicant's detention was prolonged until 25 October 2005. The Court of Appeal referred in its decision to the fact that the trial had to commence de novo. That decision was upheld on appeal on 23 September 2005. 25.  On 21 October 2005 the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant's continuous detention until 25 January 2006. It noted, however, the long intervals between the trial hearings. That decision was upheld on appeal on 15 November 2006. 26.  On 12 January 2006 the trial court ordered the applicant's release under police supervision, finding that continuation of the custodial measure was not necessary at that stage of the trial. 27.  The applicant failed to appear at the hearings scheduled for 23 June, 28 July and 5 October 2006. On 9 August 2006 the police informed the trial court that the applicant had not reported to the police station as required under his order for release. 28.  On 11 October 2006 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. The appeal proceedings are pending following the applicant's appeal against the first-instance judgment.