5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw. 6.  The applicant was arrested on 3 September 2004 during a police intervention following complaints of domestic violence made by his wife. On 4 September 2004 the Warsaw District Court remanded him in custody on suspicion of acts of domestic violence committed between May and September 2004. It relied on evidence given by the applicant's wife and his son. It found that there was a risk that the applicant might influence witnesses, in particular his twelve-year old son. The court noted that according to witnesses' statements the applicant had been violent and had not respected the living arrangements in the family flat. Furthermore, the preventive measure (police supervision) which had been imposed so far had proved ineffective. Having regard to the above, the District Court held that only detention during judicial proceedings could secure the proper conduct of the investigation. However, it noted that the investigation should last no longer than two months. 7.  The applicant appealed. However his appeal was dismissed on 5 October 2004. His requests for release were likewise dismissed, on 1 October 2004. 8.  On 26 October 2004 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 2 February 2005. It found that his continued detention was necessary in order to prevent the applicant from influencing the victims. 9.  On 9 November 2004 the applicant appealed against the extension of his detention. He argued that the background to the family conflict was related to his older son's alleged addiction to drugs and theft of his money. He also submitted that he had no criminal record and had been declared “second-degree disabled”. 10.  On 5 January 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that the applicant had just begun psychiatric observation. 11.  On 25 January 2005 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 2 May 2005. It invoked the risk that the applicant, if released, would attempt to influence the victims. It also found that continued detention was justified in order for a psychiatric report to be prepared. 12.  The applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision on 8 February 2005. 13.  The Government submitted that the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of 25 January 2005 only on 24 February 2005. His appeal, dated 25 February 2005, was submitted to the Warsaw District Court on 21 March 2005. 14.  On 6 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's and his lawyer's appeal. It relied, in particular, on the need to obtain a psychiatric report. 15.  On 11 March 2005 the Warsaw Żoliborz District Prosecutor refused the applicant's request to be released on bail. 16.  Meanwhile, on 1 April 2005 the psychiatric experts submitted their report to the District Prosecutor. 17.  On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw District Court ordered that the applicant be held in detention until 2 June 2005. In addition to the risk of obstruction of the proceedings, it held that the extension of detention was justified by the need to assess certain documentary evidence and to enable the applicant to consult the file, as the investigation was nearing its end (scheduled for 9 May 2005). On an unspecified later date the applicant appealed against that extension of his detention. 18.  On 19 May 2005 the Warsaw Żoliborz District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court. The applicant was charged with domestic violence in respect of his wife and older son. 19.  On 25 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 2 October 2005. On 30 May 2005 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 31 August 2005 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal. On 10 June and 3 August 2005 the District Court refused his applications for release. 20.  On 26 September 2005 the District Court ordered the further extension of the applicant's detention until 2 December 2005. The court referred to the risk of influencing victims' testimonies. On 3 October 2005 the applicant appealed. 21.  On 29 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court decided not to take cognisance of the applicant's appeal against the District Court's decision of 29 April 2005 extending his detention, since the period of detention authorised by that decision had expired on 2 June 2005. The applicant lodged a further appeal against that decision. On 3 November 2005 a different panel of the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal. It observed, however, that the five-month delay of the Warsaw District Court in transmitting the applicant's appeal to the Regional Court, contrary to Article 463 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had rendered the review of the decision under appeal nugatory. 22.  On 25 November 2005 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing and extended the applicant's detention until 2 January 2006. On the same day it ordered the joinder of the case with two other cases against the applicant. In those two cases he was charged with domestic violence (acts committed between December 2002 and April 2004), insulting police officers and unlawful possession of a stun gun. 23.  Six days after the last detention order, on 1 December 2005, the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 2 April 2006. 24.  On 6 December 2005 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the latter extension. On 16 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the contested decision. On 15 December 2005 the applicant himself appealed against the decision of 1 December 2005. This appeal was transmitted to the Warsaw Regional Court in October 2006. During a session held on 21 December 2006 the applicant withdrew his appeal. 25.  The trial began on 21 December 2005. It appears that during the hearing the trial court suggested that the applicant accept a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment; he refused, claiming his innocence. 26.  On 27 March 2006 the applicant was released from detention. On a prosecutor's appeal, the Warsaw District Court quashed its decision. The court stressed that if released the applicant could commit further acts of domestic violence. On 31 March 2006 the applicant was again arrested and placed in the detention centre. On the same date the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 2 July 2006. The court referred to the risk of influencing the victims' and witnesses' testimonies and the severity of the anticipated penalty. 27.  On 15 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about delays in the trial. On 21 June 2006 the Deputy President of the Warsaw Regional Court, to whom the applicant's letter had been transmitted, acknowledged that there had been delays in the proceedings against the applicant. 28.  On 7 August 2006 the Warsaw Żoliborz District Court convicted the applicant of domestic violence and insulting police officers. It sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. The applicant was released on the same day. 29.  On 30 October 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court partly upheld and partly modified the first-instance judgment. The applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. 30.  Meanwhile, on 24 September 2007 the applicant lodged, under the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), a complaint that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been breached. On 16 November 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court decided not to examine the merits of the complaints.