4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Mysłowice. 5.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was arrested in Blanes, Spain, under an international search and arrest warrant on suspicion of having committed several offences of fraud, forgery, perjury, uttering threats, robbery and kidnapping, while acting in an organised criminal group. On 12 February 2002 the Central Investigating Court in Madrid no. 3 (Juzgado Central de Instrucción) granted a request for the applicant’s extradition. On 28 April 2003 the applicant was brought to Poland. 6.  On 30 April 2003 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody until 30 June 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It further referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and to the risk that he might go into hiding. As regards the latter, the court stressed that this had happened before and had given rise to the issue of the international search and arrest warrant and to the extradition proceedings. 7.  On 23 September 2003 the Katowice District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 October 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, the severity of the anticipated sentence, the fear that he might tamper with evidence and the complexity of the case. The applicant appealed. 8.  On 29 October 2003 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention. 9.  The applicant maintains that when he was detained between 28 April 2003 and 1 April 2004 he was forced to testify, subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and that the conditions of his detention were poor. Moreover, he maintains that he was deprived of contact with his family. 10.  On 20 December 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Katowice District Court. The bill of indictment listed several charges of fraud, forgery, perjury, robbery and kidnapping brought against thirteen accused, committed in the context of an organised criminal group. 11.  On 28 December 2004 the Katowice District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2005. The court considered that the reasons for keeping him in detention were still valid. The applicant appealed. 12.  On 9 March 2005 the Katowice Regional Court partly amended the decision of the district court and reduced the further period of his detention, fixing the deadline for 27 April 2005. 13.  On 20 April 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 27 August 2005. 14.  At the first hearing, held on 23 May 2005, the Katowice District Court found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred it to the Katowice Regional Court. 15.  On 2 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwosci) about delays in the proceedings and his extradition from Spain. His complaint was referred to the Katowice District Court. In a letter of 30 June 2005 the President of the Katowice District Court informed the applicant that the trial court had dealt promptly with the case, which was very complex. 16.  On 27 June 2005 the applicant made an application for release. He requested that his detention be replaced by another preventive measure. 17.  On 8 July 2005 the Katowice District Court dismissed the application. The court found that the evidence obtained in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against him. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The court stressed that the fact that the applicant had acted in an organised criminal group posed in itself a risk of his obstructing the proper course of the proceedings. 18.  On 24 August 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 March 2006. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. 19.  On 12 December 2005 the Katowice Regional Court found that the District Court was competent to deal with the applicant’s case and referred it back to the Katowice District Court. 20.  On 16 January 2006 the Katowice District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release or as an alternative the replacement of detention by more lenient preventive measures. On 27 February 2006 the Katowice Regional Court upheld that decision. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. 21.  The hearings scheduled for 21 April, 5 May and 19 May 2006 were adjourned. 22.  On 29 March 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 August 2006. On 23 August 2006 that court ordered his continued detention until 30 December 2006. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 27 September 2006 by the Katowice Court of Appeal. 23.  On 2 June 2006 the court held the first hearing on the merits. 24.  On 1 December 2006 the Katowice District Court released the applicant under police supervision. It also ordered that the applicant be forbidden to leave his place of residence. The proceedings are still pending. 25.  On 13 January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 26.  On 22 February 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. The court examined only the proceedings before the Regional Court, namely from 17 August 2005 to 12 December 2005, and held that there were no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible. It noted that the court, when deciding on administrative and procedural matters, acted without delay. It further considered irrelevant the fact that at the material time the trial had not yet commenced. 27.  As regards the proceedings before the Katowice District Court, which began on 20 December 2004 and which are still pending before it, the Court of Appeal referred this part of the complaint to the Katowice Regional Court for consideration. On 17 May 2006 the Katowice Regional Court discontinued the proceedings, since the applicant had withdrawn his complaint on 5 May 2006 about the length of the proceedings before the District Court.