4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Będzin. 5.  The applicant was a police officer in Zawiercie. The Zawiercie police conducted an investigation into a car theft. On 30 November 1992 the applicant was instructed to verify whether a certain B.Ł. was in possession of the stolen car. The applicant and the previous owner of the car arrived at the house of B.Ł. where her parents returned the car to the owner. 6.  On 24 December 1992 the Mysłowice District Prosecutor charged the applicant with abuse of power by having intimidated the parents of B.Ł. into returning the car which had been purchased by their daughter. The prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of one month. On the same day the Mysłowice District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order. On 30 December 1992 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release. 7.  On 14 June 1993 the District Prosecutor altered the charges against the applicant. 8.  On 21 February 1994 the prosecution service filed a bill of indictment with the Mysłowice District Court. The applicant was charged with abuse of power. The charge related to the applicant’s actions on 30 November 1992, when he had allegedly intimidated the parents of B.Ł. into returning the car purchased by their daughter from the previous owner. 9.  B.Ł. took part in the proceedings as an auxiliary prosecutor. The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 30 March, 5 September, 17 October, 5 December 1994, 2 March, 12 June, 31 August 1995, and on 1 and 26 March 1996. 10.  On 6 February 1996 the trial judge who heard the case was replaced by another judge. Consequently, the case had to be heard de novo. 11.  Hearings scheduled for 10 November 1994, 3 April and 28 December 1995 were adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s counsel. A hearing scheduled for 19 January 1995 was cancelled at the applicant’s counsel’s request since he had other hearings listed for that day. Hearings scheduled for 15 May and 26 October 1995 were adjourned due to, respectively, the applicant’s illness and the auxiliary prosecutor’s absence. At the hearing on 23 April 1996 the applicant felt unwell and was taken to hospital. He was diagnosed with a heart condition. 12.  Hearings scheduled for 25 June, 6 August and 6 September 1996 were adjourned due to the applicant’s illness. On the last mentioned date the trial court ordered that the applicant be brought by the police to the next hearing fixed for 27 September 1996. However, the police failed to execute the order since the applicant had objected to his arrest on the grounds of his poor health. 13.  On 27 September 1996 the trial court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody on the ground that he had unlawfully obstructed the proceedings. The court noted that the applicant had submitted certificates of illness, although he had failed to have them confirmed by the court’s medical expert. On 10 October 1996 the applicant was detained. The detention order was upheld on appeal on 11 October 1996. 14.  The hearing scheduled for 6 November 1996 was adjourned, since the applicant had complained about the state of his health. The trial court accordingly ordered a report to be prepared in order to determine whether the applicant could participate in the trial. The report, submitted on an unspecified date, concluded that the applicant could take part in the proceedings and that he could receive adequate medical treatment in detention. 15.  On 13 November 1996 the District Court held a hearing. During the hearing the applicant was examined by a doctor. On the same day the trial court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation, and a fine. It also ordered that the applicant be prohibited from working as a police officer for four years. 16.  The trial court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on an unspecified date in May 1997. On 26 May 1997 the applicant appealed against the judgment. 17.  Two hearings scheduled by the Katowice Regional Court for 25 July and 17 October 1997 were adjourned. A hearing listed for 5 March 1998 was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s counsel. 18.  On 7 April 1998 the Katowice Regional Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment. The Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 19.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the Regional Court’s judgment. 20.  On 23 November 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted it to the latter court for a renewed examination of the appeal against the trial court’s judgment. 21.  On 18 April 2001 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 20 April 2001 the applicant filed a request for the withdrawal of the judges of the Regional Court from the case. That request was later decided on an unspecified date. 22.  On 7 September 2001 the Katowice Regional Court held a hearing and rendered its judgment. It upheld the District Court’s judgment of 13 November 1996 for the most part, amending it only in respect of the legal basis of the applicant’s conviction and sentence in connection with the entry into force on 1 September 1998 of the new Criminal Code. The applicant’s counsel was present at the delivery of the judgment. No further appeal lay against that judgment. 23.  It appears that a written copy of the Regional Court’s judgment was finalised on 5 October 2001. The applicant was not entitled to receive ex officio a copy of the judgment and did not request its service. 24.  The applicant’s first letter to the Court setting out the object of the application was dated 7 March 2002. It was sent by registered post on 8 March 2002.