5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw. 6.  The applicant was the director of a local branch in Warsaw of the bank PKO BP. 7.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Central Investigation Bureau (Centralne Biuro Śledcze, CBŚ) on suspicion of fraud and forgery of documents. On 27 January 2001 the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed the prosecutor’s request to impose on the applicant pre-trial detention finding that the suspicion against her had not been sufficiently justified. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 20 March 2001. 8.  It appears that the Pruszków District Prosecutor continued the investigation against the applicant. 9.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant was again arrested by the CBŚ. She was charged with fraud, in that with the aim of financial gain she had caused substantial financial damage to the bank in granting suspect loans to clients of the bank. Moreover, the applicant was charged with having acted together with a member of her staff, in an organised criminal group. On 11 June 2003 the Warsaw District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which she had been charged. The District Court also considered that only detention could secure the proper course of the proceedings and that there existed a risk that the applicant would influence the witnesses, many of whom were bank employees formerly under her authority. 10.  On 7 July 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. 11.  On 3 September 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the risk that the applicant, who had pleaded not guilty, would attempt to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. 12.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on 3 December 2003 and 5 March 2004. In addition to the grounds given previously, the court relied on the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant. 13.  The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against all decisions prolonging her detention, submitting that the risk of her influencing the course of the proceedings had not been in any way substantiated. Prior to her arrest in 2003 she had not made any attempt to tamper with evidence or with the investigation that had been pending at the material time. 14.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended on 8 June 2004. In a brief reasoning the court referred particularly to the nature of the investigation that required the taking of voluminous evidence. 15.  On 2 July 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the latter decision; nevertheless, it considered that the District Court’s reasoning for its decision had been “vague” (ogólnikowe). It also stated that the prosecution should intensify its actions and lodge a bill of indictment so as to allow the trial court to examine the case within a reasonable time. 16.  The subsequent decision to prolong the applicant’s detention, given on 7 September 2004 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal, contains the following reasoning:
“The Appellate Prosecutor’s application is justified. The continued pre-trial detention of [the applicant] is justified under [the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure] on the grounds given in the decision of 8 June 2004.
The evidence gathered in the case and presented in the prosecutor’s application fulfil the requirements of the [provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure].
The nature of the case, which requires the gathering of extensive evidential material, is sufficient to find that there are grounds to further prolong pre-trial detention.” 17.  An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed on 28 September 2004 on the grounds of the complexity of the case and the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant. 18.  On 8 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention, pointing to the fact that the investigation had not yet been concluded by the prosecutor. 19.  The decision of 1 March 2005, which further extended the applicant’s detention, referred back to prior decisions concerning the prolongation of her detention. 20.  The applicant appealed against this decision. The appeal was dismissed on 30 March 2005. 21.  On 13 May 2005 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw District Court. 22.  On 20 May 2005 the trial court extended the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, on two grounds: a risk that she would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings and the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed. 23.  As the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the District Court made several applications to the Warsaw Court of Appeal for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. On 3 June and 25 November 2005 and on 7 March 2006 the court granted such requests, reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention and pointing to the complexity of the case. 24.  On 30 May 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 9 December 2006, considering that the trial court should be able to finish the trial before that date. 25.  At a hearing on 21 December 2006 the Warsaw District Court decided to lift the applicant’s detention finding that it had lasted for too long. The court considered that police supervision would secure the applicant’s appearance at her trial. The applicant was released on the same date. 26.  The trial against the applicant started on 12 August 2005 and is pending before the first-instance court.