4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Wrocław. 5.  On 18 April 2002 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of fraud and that he had organised and led a criminal group. 6.  On 15 July 2002 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 September 2002. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might tamper with evidence. 7.  On 13 September 2002 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2002. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention and found that his remaining in custody was necessary to complete the expert psychiatric examination as to the state of the applicant’s mental health. 8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on 14 November 2002. The court attached importance to the serious nature of the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood of a heavy sentence being imposed on him. 9.  On 11 December 2002, the applicant was indicted on several charges of fraud while acting in an organised criminal group. Subsequently, in March 2003, the case file was transferred to the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court for reasons of procedural economy. 10.  On 23 April 2003 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention for a three-month period, until 23 July 2003. It considered that the severity of the anticipated sentence and the need to secure the proper course of the trial justified the continuation of that measure. 11.  On 22 July 2003 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 October 2003. It also observed that the applicant’s continued detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the gravity of the anticipated sentence. In addition, it referred to the complex nature of the case. 12.  On 13 October 2003 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 January 2004. The court referred to a strong likelihood that he had committed the serious offences with which he had been charged and stressed that a heavy penalty might be imposed on him. It also observed that no other measures would prevent the applicant from obstructing the proceedings or going into hiding. 13.  That decision was upheld by the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 7 November 2003. The Regional Court stated in the relevant part of the reasons for its decision that:
“The appeals are not well-founded. (...) The District Court correctly pointed out that the fear that the accused would tamper with evidence arises also from the fact – as proved by the collected evidence - that he organised and led the group of offenders. Consequently, there is a strong probability that by using the same methods of pressure on the co-accused he may induce them to tamper with evidence.” 14.  Between 14 November 2003 and 12 January 2004 the court held four hearings, two of which were adjourned. 15.  On 21 January 2004 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 March 2004. 16.  In the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for release on bail or under police supervision and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions extending his detention. 17.  On 18 February 2004 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release, holding that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid. The Court also expressed an opinion that his detention could be lifted and replaced by another preventive measure. It fixed bail at 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) [approx. 25,500 euros (EUR)], to be paid before 10 March 2004. 18.  On 22 March 2004 the Wrocław Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 April 2004. It also stated that the detention would be lifted if the applicant put up the bail. 19.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant was released on bail. The court found that releasing the applicant on bail would be sufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, taking into account the fact that it had heard evidence from him. 20.  Between 9 March 2004 and 20 March 2006 the court held thirty‑three hearings. 21.  It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.