5.  The applicant was born in 1946. 6.  On 6 December 1995 L.T. who had been wounded by a gunshot, requested that a criminal investigation be instituted. Consequently, an investigation in rem was instituted. On 17 January 1996 the applicant was arrested in connection with the investigation. On 18 January 1996 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor imposed pre-trial detention on him and three other suspects on charges of acting in an organised criminal gang and aggravated assault. The prosecutor considered that the evidence had justified the charges against the applicant, who was also suspected of being a leader of the criminal gang. It was further noted that other members of the gang had not yet been arrested. There was therefore a serious risk of collusion and suppression of evidence. Furthermore, there were grounds for believing that the applicant had ordered someone to murder L.T. The applicant appealed. 7.  On 22 January 1996 the prosecutor served the applicant with a written statement of the charges against him. This document referred to the investigation concerning the attempted murder of L.T. The prosecutor observed that the evidence gathered in this investigation had given rise to a suspicion that the attempt on L.T.’s life had been made by an organised criminal gang engaged in assaults and racketeering. Evidence given by certain witnesses, who were to remain anonymous pursuant to Article 164 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969, had unequivocally demonstrated that the applicant was a member of that gang. Hence, charges in respect of criminal offences punishable under Article 276 § 1 of the Criminal Code had to be laid against him. 8.  On 2 February 1996 the Łódź Regional Court upheld the applicant’s detention order of 18 January 1996. It noted that the evidence gathered sufficiently supported the charges against him. It indicated that it was likely that the applicant was a member of an organised criminal gang, committing aggravated assaults with the use of firearms. Having regard to the evidence given by anonymous witness no. 2, and in particular in the light of the statements given by other witnesses, including anonymous witnesses, and having also regard to various documents and the results of the inspection of a car, the court concluded that the charges against the applicant were justified. The character of those charges, involving violent crimes, also justified the decisions to impose and maintain detention, the more so as other members of the gang still remained at liberty. The applicant’s release would endanger the purpose of the ongoing investigation. 9.  On 29 February 1996 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor ordered that an expert opinion be prepared for the purposes of the further investigation. Altogether, fifteen expert opinions were prepared during the investigation. 10.  On 2 March 1996 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant’s new application for release, considering that the evidence gathered in the case, in particular the statements made by the anonymous witnesses, indicated that it was necessary to keep him in custody. 11.  On 12 April 1996 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 June 1996, having regard, in particular, to the evidence given by anonymous witnesses nos. 1 to 9. It observed that new developments were to be expected regarding new offences which had come to light, including a crime of manslaughter which appeared to have been committed with the applicant’s involvement. Moreover, new witnesses were to be questioned and further expert evidence had to be gathered, having regard to sixteen expert reports which had been prepared for the purposes of the investigation.
The court referred to the evidence gathered in the case and considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences concerned. The court also took into account that the applicant had been charged with serious crimes committed by an organised criminal gang. It further referred to the need to continue the process of gathering evidence. 12.  On an unspecified later date in June the applicant’s detention was further extended. Subsequently, on 24 September 1996, the Łódź Court of Appeal held a session during which it extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 29 December 1996. 13.  On 21 October 1996 the applicant was granted full access to the file and arrangements were made for him to study it. He examined the file daily from 21 to 31 October and subsequently from 4 until 25 November 1996. Later on, the applicant read the file on 28 and 29 November and from 2 to 8 December 1996. 14.  On 26 November 1996 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 17 January 1997. It observed that the investigation was coming to an end and that the prosecuting authorities had begun to acquaint the suspects with the files. However, it seemed that the suspects, while availing themselves of their procedural rights in this respect, were at the same time trying to prolong the proceedings by various delaying tactics. Thus, it was necessary to extend their detention. 15.  On 20 December 1996 a bill of indictment against the applicant and his ten co‑defendants was lodged with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with eleven criminal offences. The bill of indictment concerned fifty different crimes. The case file numbered thirty‑one volumes. 16.  On 17 January 1997 the Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 26 November 1996, finding that, in any event, the time-limits for detention as specified in Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had ceased to apply after the bill of indictment had been lodged with the court. 17.  The first hearing in the case was held on 24 February 1997. From February 1997 until February 1999 the court held seventy-nine hearings. On 25 January 1999 the first-instance court sentenced the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment on various charges. 18.  The applicant appealed. On 4 April 2000 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in part and remitted this part of the case to the first‑instance court. It upheld it in so far as it related to the charge of intimidating witnesses by recourse to physical violence. It upheld the applicant’s conviction in respect of that charge and imposed on him a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. It ordered that the period of detention pending trial be counted towards the sentence. Accordingly, the applicant’s sentence had expired on 18 January 2000. 19.  From 4 April 2000 the applicant was again detained pending trial. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 4 April 2000 in so far as the latter court had upheld the judgment of 25 January 1999. On 3 December 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 20.  On 21 November 2000 the Łódź Regional Court started to hold hearings in the part of the case which had been remitted for re‑examination. Between November 2000 and March 2001 it held fourteen hearings. 21.  On 12 April 2002 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant of various criminal charges and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.