5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Prievidza. 6.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant was charged with conspiracy and extortion under Articles 9 § 2 and 235 §§ 1 and 2 (b) of the Criminal Code. The charge was based on the suspicion that, acting as part of an organised group and posing as a police officer, the applicant had lured an individual into a car, driven him to another place and forced him at gunpoint to pay an amount of money. Two days later, following his arrest (see below), a lawyer was officially assigned to the applicant. 7.  Between September and December 1999 the investigators assigned to the case heard evidence from and organised a confrontation between the accused, the victim and a witness and obtained other evidence. 8.  On 7 January 2000 the Nitra District Prosecutor indicted the applicant to stand trial in the Nitra District Court (Okresný súd) on the above charge. 9.  On 21 January 2000 the District Court remitted the bill of indictment to the prosecution service for further investigation. It found that the facts had not been established adequately, in particular because it had been overlooked that, at the time of the alleged offence, the applicant had still been on probation following a conviction for an extremely serious offence (obzvlášť závažný trestný čin). It had equally been overlooked that the applicant was also facing prosecution for another extremely serious offence. These facts had to be examined and taken into account in the present case. 10.  On 22 June 2000 an investigator interviewed the applicant again. 11.  On 17 July 2000 the prosecutor filed the indictment again, classifying the applicant as an “extremely dangerous recidivist” as defined by Article 41 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 12.  The applicant requested on 24 July and 21 December 2000 and 30 May 2001 the replacement of his officially assigned lawyers on the ground that he had lost confidence in them. New lawyers were assigned to him on 16 October 2000, 23 April 2001 and 13 September 2001 respectively. The applicant finally appointed a lawyer of his choice, in November 2001. 13.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant's co-accused requested that the case against him be dealt with separately from that against the applicant on the ground that the applicant had deliberately been protracting the proceedings. 14.  On 6 June 2003, after he had been released from detention (see below), the applicant informed the District Court that he could not take part in the proceedings as he was receiving psychiatric treatment. He sent similar letters to the District Court on 13 October 2003 and 14 February 2005. In a letter of 30 October 2003 to the District Court the applicant's psychiatrist confirmed that the applicant was receiving treatment but considered that there was nothing to prevent him from taking part in the proceedings. 15.  Consequently, on 4 March 2005, the District Court appointed a psychologist to report on the applicant's mental health. The report was submitted on 26 May 2005 with the conclusion that the applicant was fit to take part in and able to comprehend the meaning of the criminal proceedings against him. 16.  In the course of the proceedings the District Court held hearings on 13 December 2000, 12 September and 15 October 2001, 23 January, 6 March and 29 May 2002, 22 January 2003, 29 November 2004 and 2 March 2005. Further hearings were listed for 30 March and 9 May 2001 and 22 September 2003. The first of these did not take place as one of the lay judges was unable to attend. The latter two were cancelled without any reasons having been given. 17.  The applicant unsuccessfully challenged on twelve occasions (on 13 December 2000, 27 March, 27 April, 28 May and 17 July 2001, 12 February, 6 March and 23 April 2002, 13 January and 5 September 2003, 1 July and 5 September 2005) the District Court or the Regional Court for bias. Further unsuccessful challenges were lodged by the applicant's co-accused. In substance, it was alleged that, given the background of the case, the judges involved were influenced by the fact that it concerned organised criminal gangs. The applicant also argued that the whole case was a fabrication and that over the recent period he had not had effective legal representation. 18.  The applicant or his lawyers requested on six occasions (25 October 2000, 27 April and 20 November 2001, 28 April, 6 June and 13 October 2003) that a hearing be rescheduled. Further postponements were requested by the applicant's co-accused. 19.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained numerous times to the Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Justice and various other public institutions concerning the manner in which the proceedings against him were being conducted. 20.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. 21.  On 6 August 1999 the applicant was arrested on the above charge. According to the arrest report, the applicant resisted and attempted to escape. The police forcibly entered his flat, used force against him and put him in handcuffs. There is no indication that the applicant suffered any injuries. 22.  Later on 6 August 1999 the District Court heard evidence from the applicant and remanded him in detention under Article 67 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) finding that there was a risk that he would abscond. 23.  In the above-mentioned decision of 21 January 2000, which concerned the remittal of the applicant's indictment, the District Court also ruled that the reasons for the applicant's detention persisted. 24.  On 9 and 21 August 2000 the applicant requested that he be released from detention. The requests were dismissed on 27 September 2000 and, on appeal, on 24 January 2001. The courts found that there was a strong suspicion against the applicant and that his continued detention was warranted in view of his “personality, previous way of life, the seriousness of the charge and the potential penalty, the fact that the offence had been committed away from the applicant's place of habitual residence and the fact that during his arrest the applicant had attempted to escape”. 25.  On 19 July 2001 the District Court requested that the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) authorise an extension of the applicant's detention over the two-year time-limit provided for in Article 71 § 2 of the CCP. It was submitted that it had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier mainly due to the applicant's unfounded repeated challenges of bias and other procedural applications. 26.  On 31 July 2001 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 February 2002. The reasons for his detention as found at the time of remanding him persisted. He was unemployed and was not staying at a fixed address. He was considered an extremely dangerous recidivist, which, according to the Supreme Court, constituted a further ground for his detention under Article 67 § 1 (c) of the CCP as there was a risk that he would continue engaging in criminal activities. It had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier and it was in the interests of justice that the applicant remained detained. There was no hearing held before the Supreme Court and no appeal was available against its decision. 27.  In the meantime, on 6 and 20 July 2001, the applicant lodged two requests for release with the Supreme Court. He argued, inter alia, that since 30 May 2001, when he had expressed a lack of confidence in his lawyer, he had in fact had no legal representation, whereas such representation was mandatory. The requests were transmitted to the District Court by which they fell to be determined at first instance, on 12 and 30 July 2001, respectively. 28.  The District Court dismissed the applicant's requests for release of July 2001 on 15 August 2001. On 27 August 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal and on 14 September 2001 the District Court transmitted the appeal to the Nitra Regional Court (Krajský súd) for determination. The latter court returned the case file to the District Court without a decision because the District Court had failed to secure service of a copy of the challenged decision on the applicant's new lawyer. On 2 October 2001 the District Court retransmitted the applicant's appeal to the Regional Court, which dismissed it on 3 October 2001. The case file was returned to the District Court on 18 October 2001. 29.  Both the District Court and the Regional Court examined the applicant's detention in private sessions (neverejné zasadnutie). The session before the Regional Court was attended by the public prosecution but not by the defence. Both courts “were of the view” that the applicant was still under a strong suspicion. They considered that, in view of his personality, his life thus far, the fact that he was suspected of having committed an extremely serious intentional offence away from the applicant's place of habitual residence and the fact that he was potentially facing a heavy penalty, the risk that the applicant would abscond persisted. A general reference to the previous decisions, but not to any specific facts, was made. 30.  On 24 January 2002 the District Court again requested an authorisation for the extension of the applicant's detention. It was argued that it had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier mainly due to the applicant's unfounded repeated challenges of bias, rejecting his lawyers and other procedural applications. 31.  On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 July 2002. It held that the previous reasons for detaining him remained valid. It was observed that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence after having been released on licence following a conviction for robbery. For reasons related to the nature of the case as well as the applicant's repeated challenges of bias, it had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier. The interests of justice still required that the applicant remain detained. 32.  On 27 March 2002 the applicant requested release. The request was dismissed on 3 May 2002 and, on appeal, on 28 August 2002. However, in the meantime, on 31 July 2002, the Regional Court decided that the applicant should be released and he was, on the last-mentioned date. 33.  On 20 April 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He directed the complaint against the District Court and argued that the proceedings before it had been too lengthy. 34.  On 28 September 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed that the length of the proceedings had been due to the applicant's numerous and repeated procedural applications, which could not be imputed to the District Court, whose conduct of the proceedings had been active and expeditious.